Official Nassau Inter-County Express Proposals and Ideas

[Amtrak7]

There's one problem that everyone's overlooked (including myself): NIMBY's love to complain about buses bringing crime, or overdevelopment, or being unsafe on neighborhood streets.

 

Yuki: Unless LIRR Oyster Bay service is beefed up, I don't see using the town as a hub is of any particular benefit. 

[Hound]

Glen Cove does not need more bus service. It's bad enough that NICE throwing money away by bringing back the n21 full time. Those buses run empty in Glen Cove past the clock tower during the day and on weekends. A connection to Oyster Bay from Glen Cove certainly isn't needed.

 

ONE bus route to Oyster Bay may work, if you gradually test it and add service as needed, instead of just putting a bunch on the route. Start with a rush hour only thing. A bus route along Jericho Tpke may work between Roosevelt Field and the Oyster Bay LIRR station. I've seen a lot of people walking along Jericho Tpke out there. I want to stress though, start with the route rush hours only and see how it works out.

As I have been suggesting for the longest time-extending the N21 further up through Glen Cove via Forest Ave where more businesses & commercial activity exist would generate more ridership. It would also be a short walk from there to North Shore Hospital at Glen Cove. The route would continue on to Locust Valley RR Station where an easy turnaround could be made.

[Vistausss]

As I have been suggesting for the longest time-extending the N21 further up through Glen Cove via Forest Ave where more businesses & commercial activity exist would generate more ridership. It would also be a short walk from there to North Shore Hospital at Glen Cove. The route would continue on to Locust Valley RR Station where an easy turnaround could be made.

 

No, no, no. Didn't you read Brett's post? Glen Cove doesn't need more bus service. If he says so then it must be right because he does have a lot of knowledge on this subject.

Glen Cove does not need more bus service.

 

Then I wonder what all the ruckus on restoring the n27 on weekends is. If they don't want bus service then they shouldn't be complaining about the n27.

There's one problem that everyone's overlooked (including myself): NIMBY's love to complain about buses bringing crime, or overdevelopment, or being unsafe on neighborhood streets.

 

So people in a non-wealthy area like Oyster Bay with some rough neighborhood streets are actually gonna NIMBY?

I think the portion of Nassau bound by Jericho Tpk, Glen Cove Rd/107/Landing St, the bay, and the Suffolk border could use a dial a ride service with maybe some rush hour rail feeders. Heck, if you look at Google Maps in Suffolk and judge density by street density, you have to go east of Route 112 to find areas that low-density. SCT's service out there (excluding the denser shores) is sparse and seasonal, and there's no central destination like Riverhead or a major mall to funnel the buses to.

 

Suffolk is dangerous enough for walking as is. No need to add more service along unsafe roads. Ask bobtehpanda and w8hou, they live there and told me this.

[PinePower]

Glen Cove does not need more bus service. It's bad enough that NICE throwing money away by bringing back the n21 full time. Those buses run empty in Glen Cove past the clock tower during the day and on weekends. A connection to Oyster Bay from Glen Cove certainly isn't needed.

 

ONE bus route to Oyster Bay may work, if you gradually test it and add service as needed, instead of just putting a bunch on the route. Start with a rush hour only thing. A bus route along Jericho Tpke may work between Roosevelt Field and the Oyster Bay LIRR station. I've seen a lot of people walking along Jericho Tpke out there. I want to stress though, start with the route rush hours only and see how it works out.

 

Well, I can tell you since I used to live in Sea Cliff back in the late 90s, that the n21 had ridership middays, nights and weekends, it used to do well back then. It's only 15 more minutes from Roslyn to Glen Cove, but it seems ridership starting dropping in the years prior to 2012, to the point where only weekday rush hours buses got crowded. Between the two, restoring the n27 to RF/HTC on weekends is way more important, but some n21 runs should have been added, as the last n21 left Flushing way too early, and the first one in the afternoon was too late, resulting in overcrowding on the n20 & 27. Don't under-estimate Glen Cove, it may be "out there" but there's alot of poor and transit dependent people that live there. Of course if it was up to me I'd have restored the n21 from 6am to 10am, and 5pm to 9pm, basically 4 hours in the AM and 4 in the PM weekdays, and restored the n27 to RF/HTC full time. Not sure what they have against the 27 over there, it carries way more ppl than the n21. Just because the n27 & 23 parallel eachother, doesn't mean the combination idea is good. Both n23 & 27 are somewhat busy routes, before the n27 was trunicated it was busy on weekends, they took that load and dumped it onto the n23 which is busy itself, and kept the hourly headways. Now buses are SRO. And n27 ridership has dropped considerably on weekends as a result, used to be mall workers & kids that would use it, now they're gone and it's just laborers.

This is the one thing that NICE has done that I just don't get, and it annoys me to no end.   

[Amtrak7]

So people in a non-wealthy area like Oyster Bay with some rough neighborhood streets are actually gonna NIMBY?

 

Not Oyster Bay proper, the intermediate neighborhoods/streets that a bus would have to run to in order to get from Hicksville or Syosset to Oyster Bay.

[FamousNYLover]

Well, I can tell you since I used to live in Sea Cliff back in the late 90s, that the n21 had ridership middays, nights and weekends, it used to do well back then. It's only 15 more minutes from Roslyn to Glen Cove, but it seems ridership starting dropping in the years prior to 2012, to the point where only weekday rush hours buses got crowded. Between the two, restoring the n27 to RF/HTC on weekends is way more important, but some n21 runs should have been added, as the last n21 left Flushing way too early, and the first one in the afternoon was too late, resulting in overcrowding on the n20 & 27. Don't under-estimate Glen Cove, it may be "out there" but there's alot of poor and transit dependent people that live there. Of course if it was up to me I'd have restored the n21 from 6am to 10am, and 5pm to 9pm, basically 4 hours in the AM and 4 in the PM weekdays, and restored the n27 to RF/HTC full time. Not sure what they have against the 27 over there, it carries way more ppl than the n21. Just because the n27 & 23 parallel eachother, doesn't mean the combination idea is good. Both n23 & 27 are somewhat busy routes, before the n27 was trunicated it was busy on weekends, they took that load and dumped it onto the n23 which is busy itself, and kept the hourly headways. Now buses are SRO. And n27 ridership has dropped considerably on weekends as a result, used to be mall workers & kids that would use it, now they're gone and it's just laborers.

This is the one thing that NICE has done that I just don't get, and it annoys me to no end.   

AT TAC Meeting, I handed out NICE Bus Comment about few passengers who complaint lots about weekend n27 bus service is. Even Spanish riders also complaint about n27 bus.

I even sent email to Nassau County Executive Candiate Tom Suozzi to ride n27 and n23 bus on Car free Day on 9/20/13.

[Turbo19]

AT TAC Meeting, I handed out NICE Bus Comment about few passengers who complaint lots about weekend n27 bus service is. Even Spanish riders also complaint about n27 bus.

I even sent email to Nassau County Executive Candiate Tom Suozzi to ride n27 and n23 bus on Car free Day on 9/20/13.

I really hate to say it, but your efforts can only go so far. I'd just continue to contact NICE directly then try to reach out to riders. I understand it's LIBRU's prerogative to do otherwise, but still.

[Vistausss]

Well, I can tell you since I used to live in Sea Cliff back in the late 90s, that the n21 had ridership middays, nights and weekends, it used to do well back then. It's only 15 more minutes from Roslyn to Glen Cove, but it seems ridership starting dropping in the years prior to 2012, to the point where only weekday rush hours buses got crowded. Between the two, restoring the n27 to RF/HTC on weekends is way more important, but some n21 runs should have been added, as the last n21 left Flushing way too early, and the first one in the afternoon was too late, resulting in overcrowding on the n20 & 27. Don't under-estimate Glen Cove, it may be "out there" but there's alot of poor and transit dependent people that live there. Of course if it was up to me I'd have restored the n21 from 6am to 10am, and 5pm to 9pm, basically 4 hours in the AM and 4 in the PM weekdays, and restored the n27 to RF/HTC full time. Not sure what they have against the 27 over there, it carries way more ppl than the n21. Just because the n27 & 23 parallel eachother, doesn't mean the combination idea is good. Both n23 & 27 are somewhat busy routes, before the n27 was trunicated it was busy on weekends, they took that load and dumped it onto the n23 which is busy itself, and kept the hourly headways. Now buses are SRO. And n27 ridership has dropped considerably on weekends as a result, used to be mall workers & kids that would use it, now they're gone and it's just laborers.

This is the one thing that NICE has done that I just don't get, and it annoys me to no end.   

 

My guess is that the n21 people were more vocal than the n27 people. It would be nice if someone (perhaps Yuki or you?) could get the n27 people to speak up and let NICE know that there's at least as much interest in weekend n27 service as restored n21 service.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

The n73 Saturday service needs to be modified.

 

Service from Wantagh needs to leave at :20 from 8:20 AM to 6:20 PM

 

It would also leave from Hicksville at 8:50 AM to 6:50 PM.

 

There would be one bus on the n73 instead of two at a time.

 

Also the other interlining routes in Hicksville would also have modified departure times on the weekends so buses stay on their route for the whole time

[aemoreira81]

A few route proposals into eastern Nassau County:

 

1. N75 (weekdays and Saturdays only): Hicksville to Oyster Bay. Start at Broadway Mall, then proceed to Hicksville LIRR, then serve approximately the following areas: Woodbury Road, South Oyster Bay Road, Syosset LIRR, Split Rock Road, Northern Boulevard, and Oyster Bay Road, into Oyster Bay, ending at the railroad station. This service would use cutaway buses. This route would be a deviated fixed route service in Syosset and Oyster Bay, in that it would deviate up to 3/4ths of a mile off route to service ADA or elderly customers with a 24-hour advance reservation. Because of this, Able-Ride would not be available along this route. I propose the use of a single bus on the route. Southbound departures from Oyster Bay LIRR would be at 7 AM (no Saturday service), 8:50 AM, 10:40 AM, 12:30 PM. 2:20 PM, 4:10 PM, and 6 PM (no Saturday service). Northbound departures would be at: 7:55 AM (no Saturday service), 9:45 AM, 11:35 AM, 1:25 PM, 3:15 PM, 5:05 PM, and 6:55 PM (to Syosset RR only, no Saturday service).: 

2. N80: In Plainedge, divert from Hicksville Road via Stewart Avenue to serve St. Joseph's Hospital. The N81 currently serves St. Joseph's.

3. N21: Extend past the post office and police station to Walnut Road via Brewster Street/Forest Avenue. This would be one block away from the hospital in Glen Cove, and service the shopping area there. I would say there because there is no other suitable place to turn around a bus without continuing on to Locust Valley LIRR, which I am not sure would welcome buses (the N21 would turn around a block down Forest). Add Saturday service to the N21 by extending N21 trips that end at Mineola Avenue in Roslyn. There would be no Sunday N21 service.

4. Equipment change (to smaller buses): Convert the N14, N45, N46, N47, N50, N51, N62, N73, N74, the route proposed, N78, N79, N80, and N81 to minibus services. These services would be housed in a separate lot somewhere in eastern Nassau County, preferably in the Bethpage area. These routes do not have ridership that justifies the use of large buses, and none of the routes operate Sundays except for the N79, which could run from Mitchel Field on Sundays. Rockville Center would operate the N14, N45, N46, N47, N51, and N62, with Mitchel Field operating the rest. In a future contract, these routes would be offered in a separate bid from the other routes to save money, as there would be many other bidders, including local school bus companies (who would also bid on Able-Ride services)

[N6 Limited]

How much money do the smaller buses save?

[Amtrak7]

The smaller buses won't save that much money.

 

I think the N73 interlines with something on the southern end, unless your observations show otherwise.

 

N75: I think DAR in Syosset would be too expensive. It works north of Northern Blvd.

 

N14: OK for minibus

N45: Rush hour route, can't use minibus on section where it matches the N43 since it'll be crowded

N46, N47: Not sure

N50, N51: Minibuses would work off-peak only

N62, N73, N74, the route proposed: Definitely minibus

N78, N79: From my experience the ridership here is highly variable. Minibuses would NOT work on weekdays, weekends probably.

N80, N81: Minibus

[PinePower]

I remember when those Orion II CNG's were around, I had them on the light routes like the n51,n73/74, and n80/81. Those buses had so many issues, I dont think they got more than a couple of years out of them. Dont know what ever became of them either.

Problem with minibuses is interlining, and unpredictable crowds. Better to stick with full size buses. Look at Suffolk and the 30 footers, sometimes they wind up on a route like the S58 and let me tell you its not a good experience. 

[PinePower]

I'll tell you one thing. You won't see me on a Minibus if its on a public NICE route. I prefer full size buses all the time. It's better for interlining anyway

 

Same here. Probably why the HUB shuttle and the n53 failed. Then there were those awful Thomas School buses they used on the JFK Flyer, if you liked being thrown out of your seat and no a/c, but most didn't, which didn't help matters on that route's ridership. They only started using regular buses a year or two before the JFK Flyer was axed.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

For now its fine to use regular 40 foot buses. Despite some routes not having much ridership, we all know how crazy they can get in terms of interlining.

[Burrstone]

I'll tell you one thing. You won't see me on a Minibus if its on a public NICE route. I prefer full size buses all the time. It's better for interlining anyway

 

I don't often ride the bus but when I do I prefer full sized Orions!  lol

 

But seriously if you (anyone in general) really needed to ride the bus, you'd get on whatever bus came.  You might be pissed off it's not what you prefer but...

 

If vans are cheaper on the line, why not?  

[Burrstone]

Because I've tried vans back two years ago when the TTC had them on the discontinued Q79 route. The rides sucked, the van drivers missed stops, it was not comfortable and I always had to have cash, no fareboxes for metrocards. I don't really like the vans that are used for things like Able-Ride either. It's just not the same feeling as being on a bus.

 

I didn't mean you specifically I meant "why not" in general...  In my mind if the same driver was given a van as opposed to a 40' transit bus, why not, he already knows the route whether it's a 40' transit bus or cut away van, right?  Same driver, different vehicle, in my mind... 

[Vistausss]

IMHO, with the exception of the Van Hool A308 and probably the A300 K, mini buses (and vans for that matter) are really uncomfortable and some models make a lot of noise resulting in a less than pleasant ride.

[aemoreira81]

I didn't mean you specifically I meant "why not" in general...  In my mind if the same driver was given a van as opposed to a 40' transit bus, why not, he already knows the route whether it's a 40' transit bus or cut away van, right?  Same driver, different vehicle, in my mind... 

 

Veolia has part-time operators. Having said that, for this to work, NICE operations would likely require two different contracts for this to work---one for the full-sized buses and one for the lighter-use lines. The latter would likely employ school bus drivers, who make less and may or may not be unionized.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Veolia has part-time operators. Having said that, for this to work, NICE operations would likely require two different contracts for this to work---one for the full-sized buses and one for the lighter-use lines. The latter would likely employ school bus drivers, who make less and may or may not be unionized.

That's a disaster waiting to happen in so many ways, IMO.

[Vistausss]

@aemoreira: You're right about that, I can confirm that it works like that.

[Burrstone]

IMHO, with the exception of the Van Hool A308 and probably the A300 K, mini buses (and vans for that matter) are really uncomfortable and some models make a lot of noise resulting in a less than pleasant ride.

 

I've ridden some of the HART 30' Gillig buses and the seating is horrible subway style seating on the low floor part and cramped rows in the back with no leg room.  I'd take a nice airport shuttle cutaway "van" any day.

 

Veolia has part-time operators. Having said that, for this to work, NICE operations would likely require two different contracts for this to work---one for the full-sized buses and one for the lighter-use lines. The latter would likely employ school bus drivers, who make less and may or may not be unionized.

 

I agree that having part timers is a disaster waiting to happen.  First, with many union contracts a company cannot just hire part timers to do a union job unless the union agrees to it.  I know Veolia has hired part times (as LIB did for years) so I have no idea what the union's position is on part timers.  I would assume the union is ok with it since Veolia is hiring part timers, but these employees are said to have a chance of becoming full time once positions come available, the union may have a problem with part time workers that the company has no intention of making full time to save money by taking a union position.  The in the city and the union have been battling for years because the wanted part time bus drivers to cut on costs.

 

I understand you said since NICE already has p/t operators, that was just a general statement about p/t'ers  What happens when these people gain enough seniority to go full time or bid out of the the van route?  NICE would become reliant on PT drivers, and as already stated NICE would be giving P/T work to non unionized drivers that was once a FT union job, that would probably become a problem with the union. 

 

 

 

The latter would likely employ school bus drivers, who make less and may or may not be unionized.

 

NICE (and the ) already have a bunch of school bus drivers who come over because they want a better job than driving a school bus part time where they are laid off for the summer.  So you might have a hard time attracting people from one part time shit job to another....  There are also better benefits to deciding to drive a school bus part time than driving in a transit system part time.  Most school bus drivers are either retired and don't want to deal with the crap of driving a transit bus, or are just starting out and looking for a better job.

 

Despite the fascinating stories told by Hound, driving a transit bus is no harder than driving a school bus,, most could probably get used to the difference in an afternoon!  Notice I said MOST and I mean that but it has more to do with the person than the job.  

 

NICE already has van drivers at able ride, why wouldn't they just use them?

 

Driving a full sized school bus requires a Class B CDL with passenger and school bus endorsements, a transit bus requires a CDL B with passenger endorsement a school bus van requires only a class C CDL with passenger and school bus endorsements, a cutaway van like we are talking about here (and used for para transit) also requires a CDL c with passenger endorsements.  A class C is really like a non CDL (as anyone can drive a van) but are able to tack the passenger and school bus endorsements onto it because no one can drive a  vehicle with a certain amount of people or school aged children without a P or S endorsement.

 

Technically NICE could hire people with class C CDL with Passenger endorsement but I know for a fact that when they first started hiring they only hired people with a minimum of a Class B CDL and had no interest in people with a Class C.  This could have changed, but the reasoning was they wanted people with a Class B so they were more unilateral and could quickly move into driving a transit bus if needed.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

N1: Run buses every 60 minutes instead of 45 minutes on Sundays

 

N2: The current 8:37 AM trip from Green Acres would instead orginate at 8:18 AM at Hempstead Tpke.

 

N14: Run service every 40-50 minutes instead of 20-25.

 

N36: Combine Services with N62 SF Industrial Loop ; Run every 30 minutes during the Rush Hour

 

N46: Discontinue all service

 

N48/49: Run Service every 30 minutes off peak hours combined.

N50: Run Off Peak Service every 70 minutes instead of 60.

 

N51: Run service every 50 minutes instead of 60 minutes

 

N54/55: Buses Run every 15 minutes during between Sunrise Mall and Washington Avenue in Massapequa Park Rush hours. Service would run every 30 minutes midday hours.

 

N62 SF Loop: Combined with n36

 

N80/81: The 80/81 would have a unified routing on Stewart Avenue , then individual routing south of Hempstead Tpke as the current routing is; 81 buses rerouted to run onto Hempstead instead of Boundary Avenue (the 73/74 would be a nearby alternative).

[Vistausss]

@Q23: Sounds 'okay' to me, but what I'd like to see is the reasoning behind the change in every route proposal.

 

(btw, every 50 or 70 minutes would be a nightmare in terms of scheduling and I'm not sure it'll help the passengers either)

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

@Q23: Sounds 'okay' to me, but what I'd like to see is the reasoning behind the change in every route proposal.

 

(btw, every 50 or 70 minutes would be a nightmare in terms of scheduling and I'm not sure it'll help the passengers either)

Actually scratch the n51 proposal.

 

The n50 proposal is done because I would increase the running time Between Belmore LIRR and Bellmore Avenue by 3 minutes.

 

The run time would be 29 minutes, and a cycle would be leaving every 35 minutes, therefore it would be every 70 minutes.

 

During Rush Hours, however, it would remain at 60, as that only at Hicksville would the bus turn and go back to Bellmore like a loop, to maintain that service.

The n48/49 currently runs every 80 minutes, so every 60 minutes would work out better (30 combined, and might work out).

 

The n54/55 get too full between Washington Avenue HTC with 30 minute headways peak hours, and people often have to wait for another bus. This would help keep service to the most crowded part of the route, and crowding wouldn't be as bad.

I would add one minute in between timepoints for the n1, and an extra minute between Macy's and Valley Stream LIRR, hence why.

The n2 trip to be extended would reduce deadhead time.

 

The reduction of half the n14 runs would go to adding one extra n36 trip. The n62 SF can also e combined with the n36 because its close enough to, besides, most of the n62 SF Industial Loop is the routing of the n36 in Freeport, and there's so many excess buses.

 

Buses would run every 30 minutes instead of 20 via the loop.