Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Random Thoughts Thread - Suffolk County Transit


Amtrak7
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Lex said:

Well, I recall seeing at least one video (from within the past few years) of one on the S42. I think this was an actual conversion, as the route isn't exactly known for its ridership, something that hasn't changed much from the days when I had family in Central Islip.

I wouldn't doubt them being on the S42; everyone's too busy jumping on 3c's, 3d's, and S40's.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

It looks like the S40 diversion down to Middle Road was quietly eliminated. I didn't even noticed it, until I realize something about the schedule looks off. This has to be a recent thing. 

https://www.sct-bus.org/schedules/s40.pdf

Yeah, I saw a notice on a couple of the buses I rode a couple weeks ago, stating the discontinuation of that branch.... Surprised it lasted this long, to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Yeah, I saw a notice on a couple of the buses I rode a couple weeks ago, stating the discontinuation of that branch.... Surprised it lasted this long, to be honest.

Considering how inconsistent service on that branch was (and that it left gaps of 60-120 minutes on the main route in that area, whatever it's like), I share the sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just now realized that you can pay for ST bus fares on an app. I was boycotting fanning ST cause of their odd bus stop layout got me passed up as the B/O pulled into the stop, didn't see the route he was driving on the sign and kept going, and this a cold day in November on a route with hour headways!

 

 

I'll try to stick to ST routes with short headways, I know the S1 has or had short headways for a suburban bus system.

 

 

BTW this happened on the S62 on that last left it makes before Port Jefferson LIRR, Smith Haven mall bound. The stop where it makes the first right after crossing the railroad tracks, the actual bus stop sign wasn't there so I didn't know the bus stopped there otherwise I would have waited there instead of look for another stop.

 

 

In the long run it worked in my favor as I ended up getting an M3 on the Ronkonkoma Branch later that day :)

Edited by trainfan22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

I just now realized that you can pay for ST bus fares on an app. I was boycotting fanning ST cause of their odd bus stop layout got me passed up as the B/O pulled into the stop, didn't see the route he was driving on the sign and kept going, and this a cold day in November on a route with hour headways!

 

 

I'll try to stick to ST routes with short headways, I know the S1 has or had short headways for a suburban bus system.

 

 

BTW this happened on the S62 on that last left it makes before Port Jefferson LIRR, Smith Haven mall bound. The stop where it makes the first right after crossing the railroad tracks, the actual bus stop sign wasn't there so I didn't know the bus stopped there otherwise I would have waited there instead of look for another stop.

 

 

In the long run it worked in my favor as I ended up getting an M3 on the Ronkonkoma Branch later that day :)

You wouldn't get too far if you wanted a suburban bus system with short headways lol. The frequency out there simply suck, but they do provide alot of coverage though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 12/18/2020 at 4:47 PM, Mtatransit said:

You wouldn't get too far if you wanted a suburban bus system with short headways lol. The frequency out there simply suck, but they do provide alot of coverage though

To be fair, the US just doesn't really fund suburban transit.

Canada has pretty similar land use patterns and you can find extensive coverage systems with frequent transit in their suburbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be fair, the US just doesn't really fund suburban transit.

Canada has pretty similar land use patterns and you can find extensive coverage systems with frequent transit in their suburbs.

Canada has higher frequency for their suburbs (well Toronto has every 10 minutes). Most of Canadian's suburb has all day 30 minute service at the minimum. I would also argie that Canadian suburbs are more walkable

I also think its a mindset. In the U.S we written off the suburbs as "they would never use the bus" or "only the poor will use the bus". This mindset prevents transit agency from improving service. The only poor will use transit also cause PEOPLE to not use and support funding transit. 

Ironically in my opinion the most successful suburban transit system was MTA Long Island Bus. They had more ridership than most midsize cities in the U.S. If they would've gotten more funding, we could've gotten a Queens style network in aleast the Western part of Nassau

Edited by Mtatransit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So I did a bit of fanning out to Suffolk County (which is pretty hard to do as the n79 is pretty much gone now) and I have to either take the n70 or the n54/55 to Sunrise or Rt 110

Some observations I noticed

Suffolk County could benefit from some timed transfer points. I was burned multiple times because the bus arriving arrived slightly too late to connect with the bus leaving. Of course the network is probably not optimized like that but I do think they could benefit from it

Suffolk County Transit seems to deviate into every single shopping plaza lol. Its probably for the best because of how unwalkable alot of suffolk is but there is one on the 2A I do think is unnecessary (Gardiner Manor Plaza)

2A and 2B I do not know what happened there. For one Wheatley Shopping Center doesn't really seems like a ridership draw. I don't really think the 2A need to even go down there. In fact I think in some ways 2a and 2b could be combined.

My proposal is (this is strictly from the map not sure about the ridership patterns normally due to covid)

Eliminate 2A entirely

Reroute 2B onto Nicolls Rd replacing that 2a segment in Wyandanch and continuing the bus down Deer Park Ave until Bay Shore Rd. I would also eliminate the deviation onto Brook Ave, Tell Avenue and Commack Rd and keep the 2B along Bay Shore Rd. If it were up to me I would have the 2B serve the Mechanicsville Rd first and then serving South Shore Mall, but the layover at Bay Shore Mechanicsville Rd is most likely better than South Shore Mall from operation POV. 

In doing that I would reroute the S29 off Deer Park Ave and onto West 16th and Woods Rd. This way some portions of Grand Blvd will have two bus routes north and south, while that portion of Deer Park Ave will still have the S23 service.

 

Some other thoughts

Can't they extend the 3D via the 3A routing and eliminate the route? There seems to be demand coming from that part of the county up to Smith Haven. I think some people who takes the route from South Shore does just that. There has to be a better way of serving Brentwood than have the 3A which goes up to Oakland St then down Lincoln Avenue then back up Wicks Rd. I understand they do it for coverage reasons for that part of Suffolk County because its transit dependent, but can't the resources be used to improve service on the S27?

S31- I don't see the point of this route. Apparently it has enough ridership to not make the list compared to the S54, but who does this route serves exactly? Or is it just that it only has two runs so its cost effective

S57/S59- I couldn't find a way to ride these routes due to time constraints and how long it would take to run from Sayville to Smith Haven. What is going on with these two routes?

On the S54 is there that much ridership between Patchogue and Hauppauge or WWM? I would route the S54 north onto Broadway Ave and run it via the S59 to Ronkonkoma Station and serve Republic Airport, Sayville Plaza and Colony Park Apartments. S57 would no longer serve Republic Airport and Colony Park Apartments. Essentially S59 will serve Ocean Av then straight on Lakeland Ave. We could even keep that Lake Ronkonkoma Loop via Rosevale. Essentially I am extending the ride for people who are heading from Hauppauge to South Shore Montauk Highway locations and improving service north-south. It would be even better if SCT implements timed transfers at Ocean Ave and VM Highway

Rt 109 deserves a bus route, from Farmingdale to Babylon. From a connection and coverage point of view. SCT was talking about a new route, seems like COVID-19 scrapped it.

Now reading this, this is more and more turning into a proposal. SCT simply has routes that are way out of date and schedules are also way out of dates as well.  It doesn't seem like the county "knows" its bus system.

 

 

Edited by Mtatransit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

So I did a bit of fanning out to Suffolk County (which is pretty hard to do as the n79 is pretty much gone now) and I have to either take the n70 or the n54/55 to Sunrise or Rt 110

Some observations I noticed

Suffolk County could benefit from some timed transfer points. I was burned multiple times because the bus arriving arrived slightly too late to connect with the bus leaving. Of course the network is probably not optimized like that but I do think they could benefit from it

SCT as a whole used to be pretty good at having b/o's hold for connections (when one of the buses were late).... Communications b/w dispatch & the b/o's over the radio are much less common these days than they used to be... Not sure what that's about....

20 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Some other thoughts

Can't they extend the 3D via the 3A routing and eliminate the route? There seems to be demand coming from that part of the county up to Smith Haven. I think some people who takes the route from South Shore does just that. There has to be a better way of serving Brentwood than have the 3A which goes up to Oakland St then down Lincoln Avenue then back up Wicks Rd. I understand they do it for coverage reasons for that part of Suffolk County because its transit dependent, but can't the resources be used to improve service on the S27?

S31- I don't see the point of this route. Apparently it has enough ridership to not make the list compared to the S54, but who does this route serves exactly? Or is it just that it only has two runs so its cost effective

S57/S59- I couldn't find a way to ride these routes due to time constraints and how long it would take to run from Sayville to Smith Haven. What is going on with these two routes?

On the S54 is there that much ridership between Patchogue and Hauppauge or WWM? I would route the S54 north onto Broadway Ave and run it via the S59 to Ronkonkoma Station and serve Republic Airport, Sayville Plaza and Colony Park Apartments. S57 would no longer serve Republic Airport and Colony Park Apartments. Essentially S59 will serve Ocean Av then straight on Lakeland Ave. We could even keep that Lake Ronkonkoma Loop via Rosevale. Essentially I am extending the ride for people who are heading from Hauppauge to South Shore Montauk Highway locations and improving service north-south. It would be even better if SCT implements timed transfers at Ocean Ave and VM Highway

Rt 109 deserves a bus route, from Farmingdale to Babylon. From a connection and coverage point of view. SCT was talking about a new route, seems like COVID-19 scrapped it.

Now reading this, this is more and more turning into a proposal. SCT simply has routes that are way out of date and schedules are also way out of dates as well.  It doesn't seem like the county "knows" its bus system.

3A/3D: Thing with that is the S27 does nothing for all those people that take 3a's, 3b's, 41's, and/or 45's south of Brentwood.... There's simply a greater demand for the S45 south of Brentwood than there is for the S27..... FWIW though, If I were to try to phase out the 3a, I would turn its portion south of Brentwood into a variant of the S41... In turn, the 3b would remain the same b/w Gardiner Manor Mall & Franklin st/Washington av. in Brentwood, to then go on to doing the 3a en route to Hauppauge Industrial park.... A better use of resources IMO would be to go about phasing out the 3a this way (more service towards the S41 & a combined 3a/3b of sorts), as opposed to running 3d's over the 3a to SS mall & eliminating the 3a north of LIRR Brentwood....

Here, I'll render it for you & anyone else reading this → >>MAP HERE<<

S31: The point of the route used to be to connect people to Newsday (and SUNY Farmingdale)..... Now all it does is attract shift workers along/around rt. 110 instead.... Probably keeping it around though, b/c like you allude to, it's a drop in the bucket to run 2 trips each way on the thing....

S57/S59: Wait, how are you having the S54 run up Broadway av. via the S59 to LIRR Ronkonkoma & also having it serve Republic Airport, Sayville Plaza and Colony Park Apartments?

rt. 109 comment: Vehemently agree.... I didn't care much when the n19 got cut back, but I was quite livid when the n72 got neutered to what it is today.

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

SCT as a whole used to be pretty good at having b/o's hold for connections (when one of the buses were late).... Communications b/w dispatch & the b/o's over the radio are much less common these days than they used to be... Not sure what that's about....

3A/3D: Thing with that is the S27 does nothing for all those people that take 3a's, 3b's, 41's, and/or 45's south of Brentwood.... There's simply a greater demand for the S45 south of Brentwood than there is for the S27..... FWIW though, If I were to try to phase out the 3a, I would turn its portion south of Brentwood into a variant of the S41... In turn, the 3b would remain the same b/w Gardiner Manor Mall & Franklin st/Washington av. in Brentwood, to then go on to doing the 3a en route to Hauppauge Industrial park.... A better use of resources IMO would be to go about phasing out the 3a this way (more service towards the S41 & a combined 3a/3b of sorts), as opposed to running 3d's over the 3a to SS mall & eliminating the 3a north of LIRR Brentwood....

Here, I'll render it for you & anyone else reading this → >>MAP HERE<<

S31: The point of the route used to be to connect people to Newsday (and SUNY Farmingdale)..... Now all it does is attract shift workers along/around rt. 110 instead.... Probably keeping it around though, b/c like you allude to, it's a drop in the bucket to run 2 trips each way on the thing....

S57/S59: Wait, how are you having the S54 run up Broadway av. via the S59 to LIRR Ronkonkoma & also having it serve Republic Airport, Sayville Plaza and Colony Park Apartments?

rt. 109 comment: Vehemently agree.... I didn't care much when the n19 got cut back, but I was quite livid when the n72 got neutered to what it is today.

 

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

SCT as a whole used to be pretty good at having b/o's hold for connections (when one of the buses were late).... Communications b/w dispatch & the b/o's over the radio are much less common these days than they used to be... Not sure what that's about....

3A/3D: Thing with that is the S27 does nothing for all those people that take 3a's, 3b's, 41's, and/or 45's south of Brentwood.... There's simply a greater demand for the S45 south of Brentwood than there is for the S27..... FWIW though, If I were to try to phase out the 3a, I would turn its portion south of Brentwood into a variant of the S41... In turn, the 3b would remain the same b/w Gardiner Manor Mall & Franklin st/Washington av. in Brentwood, to then go on to doing the 3a en route to Hauppauge Industrial park.... A better use of resources IMO would be to go about phasing out the 3a this way (more service towards the S41 & a combined 3a/3b of sorts), as opposed to running 3d's over the 3a to SS mall & eliminating the 3a north of LIRR Brentwood....

Here, I'll render it for you & anyone else reading this → >>MAP HERE<<

S31: The point of the route used to be to connect people to Newsday (and SUNY Farmingdale)..... Now all it does is attract shift workers along/around rt. 110 instead.... Probably keeping it around though, b/c like you allude to, it's a drop in the bucket to run 2 trips each way on the thing....

S57/S59: Wait, how are you having the S54 run up Broadway av. via the S59 to LIRR Ronkonkoma & also having it serve Republic Airport, Sayville Plaza and Colony Park Apartments?

rt. 109 comment: Vehemently agree.... I didn't care much when the n19 got cut back, but I was quite livid when the n72 got neutered to what it is today.

3a/3b- I really like the way you combined the route north of Brentwood. This way both routes will continue to get served. Except for Manituck Blvd. I guess what I was trying to do was to create a north south route by using the 3D, because I thought there were people who use the 3abc's and others from the south shore to transfer to the 3d

S57/59- My s54 would kind of be like this

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1i_dy8qvYU6q2af2ML-bzFs3ob63HGsU3&ll=40.75527449547767%2C-73.09676081039291&z=12

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

3a/3b- I really like the way you combined the route north of Brentwood. This way both routes will continue to get served. Except for Manituck Blvd. I guess what I was trying to do was to create a north south route by using the 3D, because I thought there were people who use the 3abc's and others from the south shore to transfer to the 3d

Oh, there's plenty of xferring going on b/w buses in Brentwood.... I wouldn't condone it under normal circumstances (as I would leave both of these routes I'm about to mention alone).... Under budget constraints (such as this one that has them opting to cut so many bus routes) though, you could get away with restructuring/breaking up the S45 & combining parts of it with the 3d.... You inquired on running 3d's over the 3a south of Brentwood (as in, Manituck Blvd.), but you're much better off disassembling the S45 at Brentwood & having the 3d running over the S45 south of Brentwood....

19 hours ago, Mtatransit said:
On 2/1/2021 at 10:08 PM, B35 via Church said:
On 2/1/2021 at 1:53 AM, Mtatransit said:

I would route the S54 north onto Broadway Ave and run it via the S59 to Ronkonkoma Station and serve Republic Airport, Sayville Plaza and Colony Park Apartments. S57 would no longer serve Republic Airport and Colony Park Apartments. Essentially S59 will serve Ocean Av then straight on Lakeland Ave. We could even keep that Lake Ronkonkoma Loop via Rosevale. Essentially I am extending the ride for people who are heading from Hauppauge to South Shore Montauk Highway locations and improving service north-south. It would be even better if SCT implements timed transfers at Ocean Ave and VM Highway

S57/S59: Wait, how are you having the S54 run up Broadway av. via the S59 to LIRR Ronkonkoma & also having it serve Republic Airport, Sayville Plaza and Colony Park Apartments?

S57/59- My s54 would kind of be like this: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1i_dy8qvYU6q2af2ML-bzFs3ob63HGsU3&ll=40.75527449547767%2C-73.09676081039291&z=12

I didn't realize/understand that you were referring to having the S54 terminate at LIRR Ronkonkoma.... If the idea is to take it away from Patchogue, then yeah, LIRR Ronkonkoma is basically the best place to end the thing.... At the same time though, there is a demand that consists of travel between {[Mastic-Shirley] & [Bellport/North Bellport]} to, at minimum, {industrial Hauppauge}.... Anybody still on a Patchogue bound bus south of the Target in Sayville, is going straight to Patchogue - not for Patchogue itself, but to xfer to some other bus at Patchogue, outside of the S40..... Historically, that demarcation line would be south of SunVet Mall (which is unofficially a dead mall now), but that Target they built up on the opposite side of Sunrise Hwy. does have ppl. utilizing the S54 to get there.....

Regarding the S57/59, I'm going to be blunt.... There really isn't a need for two routes running b/w LIRR Ronkonkoma & Smith Haven... For some odd reason, I believe SCT realizes this too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

A quick summary of the two concepts (Red routes run from 5am - 10pm, with 30 minute headways between 5am and 6pm). Most other routes run from 6am - 6pm, with 60 minute headways (the exception being the S92 which keeps its current span, and the rush hour S110 and summer-only S47).

Coverage-Based Concept

1: Present-day S1

1A: Modified 1A, 60 minute headways

2: Combination of the present-day S40 and S20 (2A runs via Oak Street, 2B runs straight down Montauk Highway)

3: Present-day S29 south of the LIE, present-day S23 north of the LIE

4: Combination of the present-day 3D and S33 (Stony Brook - Amityville via Nicholls Road, Suffolk Avenue, and Straight Path)

5: Present-day S27 rerouted to Central Islip instead of Hauppauge

6: Present-day S54 (rerouted via Sunrise Highway instead of Montauk Highway, via MacArthur Airport, via Central Islip LIRR station)

7: Northern portion of present-day S41, southern portion tweaked to operate via 3A routing (Manatuck Blvd)

9: 5th Avenue portion of present-day S41, and then via Hauppauge to Central Islip

11: Brentwood Road portion of present-day S45, and then via Hauppauge (Washington Avenue) to Central Islip

12: Combination of present-day 2A/2B, routed via Bay Shore Road

13: Combination of the present-day 2B and the S62 west of Smith Haven

15: Islip Avenue portion of the present-day S42

17: Carleton Avenue portion of the present-day 3C, extended directly to Islip LIRR station

19: Connequot Avenue portion of the present-day 3C

S47: Present-day S47

51: Present-day 7A extended to Stony Brook via S59 and 3D routes

52: Present-day 6A extended to Central Islip via Motor Parkway, and rerouted to Gordon Heights on the eastern end

58: Present-day S58 rerouted via Stony Brook (via Mark Tree Road), via Hauppauge and ending at Central Islip

61: Present-day S61 extended to Stony Brook via present-day S76 route

62: Present-day S62 truncated to Smith Haven Mall

66: Present-day S66 (all trips via Montauk Highway through North Bellport)

92: Present-day S92

S110: Present-day S110

DR1: Demand-response version of present-day S25

DR2: Demand-response version of present-day S56 (and western portion of present-day S58)

DR3: Demand-response version of the southern portion of the present-day S57/S59

DR4: Demand-response version of present-day 6B

DR5: Demand-response version of present-day S63

DR6: Demand-response version of present-day S68/7B

DR7: Demand-response version of present-day 8A

DR8: Demand-response version of present-day 10B/10C

Southampton microtransit pilot program

Frequency-Based Concept

1: Present-day S1

2: Combination of the present-day S40 and S20 (All trips straight down Montauk Highway)

4: Combination of the present-day 3D and S33 (Stony Brook - Amityville via Nicholls Road, Suffolk Avenue, and Straight Path)

5: Central Islip - Babylon via Suffolk Avenue, Commack Road, and Deer Park Avenue (Portions of the present-day S27, S29, 3A, and 3D)

6: Present-day S54 (rerouted via Sunrise Highway instead of Montauk Highway, via MacArthur Airport, via Central Islip LIRR station)

7: Northern portion of present-day S41, southern portion tweaked to take Brentwood Road, Candlewood Road, 5th Avenue, and Brook Avenue

11: Bay Shore - Hauppauge via Brentwood Road, Spur Drive North/South, Broadway, Suffolk Avenue, and Washington Avenue

12: Combination of present-day 2A/2B, routed via Howells Road

17: Carleton Avenue portion of the present-day 3C (seems like it cuts across Sunburst Blvd to Lowell Avenue), extended directly to Islip LIRR station, and extended to Hauppauge on the northern end

51: Present-day 7A extended to Stony Brook via S59 and 3D routes

52: Present-day 6A extended to Central Islip via Motor Parkway, and rerouted to Gordon Heights on the eastern end

55: Present-day S63 rerouted to Port Jefferson via Boyle Road (6B territory)

58: Present-day S58 rerouted via Hauppauge and ending at Central Islip (though it looks like Brentwood on the map)

61: Present-day S61 extended to Stony Brook via present-day S76 route

66: Present-day S66, all trips via Montauk Highway in North Bellport

77: Brookhaven Memorial Hospital portion of the present-day 7B

92: Present-day S92

S110: Present-day S110

Southampton microtransit pilot program

I'll get back with some full commentary, but at a quick glance, here's my comments with the major issues of both concepts/proposals.

My Comments - Coverage-Based Network

At a quick glance, I'm disappointed that the spans generally don't change (It's actually a bit of a span reduction, though I'm not sure if it means 6pm from both ends, and if they include short-turns or things like that). One of the big flaws of the current SCT network is the lack of evening service. (Though at least pretty much all the routes have Sunday service)

For the S23/29 combination, I think it should go straight across Half Hollow Road (rather than backtracking from the LIE Service Road and Bagatelle Road, unless the plan is to have it hop on the LIE for one exit, but even then...)

That S58 backtrack to Stony Brook is ridiculous. Leaving the western portion of Jericho Turnpike to a Smithtown circulator/demand-response route isn't something I'm wild about, but I suppose it could work.

I would've thought North Bellport would've warranted a little more than just a demand-response shuttle.

There's definitely way too many routes doing that Brentwood - Hauppauge - Central Islip bit (It's bad enough the present-day S45 does that backtrack from Central Islip back up to Hauppauge. Let alone having multiple routes meander around that area).

My Comments - Frequency-Based Network

The Port Jefferson - Riverhead portion of the present-day S62 should definitely be kept in one form or another

The 52 gets 30 minute headways and evening service while the 58 gets 60 minute headways and no evening service? The only possible logic is that the 52 is shorter, and they wanted to get service as far as Coram/Gordon Heights. Maybe have evening 58 service (and/or alternate daytime trips) run from Smith Haven to Riverhead and run that in place of the 52 if costs are a concern.

That 77 definitely shouldn't be a standalone route. If they want to combine it with either the 2 or 6, and have a demand-response route cover North Bellport, that might work (depending on how busy that portion of the 7B is, but it definitely shouldn't be left with no service)

The 3A should still be kept and then south of Sunrise Highway, routed to cover the Udall Road portion of the present-day S27 into Babylon

If you have the 52 running once per hour, you can extend that from Central Islip to Islip via Islip Avenue/NY-111

If there isn't any service on the northern portion of Deer Park Avenue, there should at least be some service along Nicholls Road (e.g. Routing the 12 through there)

Most of the demand-response areas from the coverage-based network should be kept (the DR1, DR2, DR3, and DR6 should at least be kept).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, the proposed coverage model was deliberately designed to be utter shit just to try to push people toward the frequency model.

You'd think at least the frequency proposal would expand upon the concept of having a spike in service for the rush periods and a shift to a somewhat lower frequency outside of those periods, but nope. If anything, the proposal calls for a partial retraction of such to the point where only the S110 will have any amount of service at 15-minute intervals or better. 

As much as I'd like to see Sunday service across the entire system, the proposed frequencies for literally every other day are driving me up the wall.

One other thing that irks me is the attempt at keeping the S92 as-is (for the most part), even though the route is basically two separate ones converging in Riverhead, forming a route with much of the island's length with an approximate trip time of three hours. The more consistent schedule and greater span are nice and all, but it's obvious that this whole thing was slapped together without nearly as much care as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lex said:

You'd think at least the frequency proposal would expand upon the concept of having a spike in service for the rush periods and a shift to a somewhat lower frequency outside of those periods, but nope. If anything, the proposal calls for a partial retraction of such to the point where only the S110 will have any amount of service at 15-minute intervals or better. 

That doesn't surprise me at all. Jarrett's frequent networks are always based on the midday frequency, with minimal added rush hour service. The logic is that peak service is more expensive to provide (you have to buy vehicles that will only be used for a few hours a day, and have the drivers take split shifts to cover the two rush hours) and also that a lot of low-paying jobs involve odd hours (And also, a lot of leisure trips occur outside of normal work hours). Offhand, he recommended the same thing in Philadelphia (a reduction in rush hour service, but greatly expanded off-peak service).

If you think about it, even if you wanted to expand the (currently minimal) ridership base of people using SCT to connect to the LIRR, you'd have to have better early morning and late evening service. (Think about it, if you leave the office at 6pm, you're probably out at your Suffolk County station around 7:30pm or so, which is later than a lot of routes run currently...you go out to dinner with your friends and already you're talking 9pm or later). 

Edited by checkmatechamp13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2021 at 1:58 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

My Comments - Coverage-Based Network

a) At a quick glance, I'm disappointed that the spans generally don't change (It's actually a bit of a span reduction, though I'm not sure if it means 6pm from both ends, and if they include short-turns or things like that). One of the big flaws of the current SCT network is the lack of evening service. (Though at least pretty much all the routes have Sunday service)

b) That S58 backtrack to Stony Brook is ridiculous. Leaving the western portion of Jericho Turnpike to a Smithtown circulator/demand-response route isn't something I'm wild about, but I suppose it could work.

c) I would've thought North Bellport would've warranted a little more than just a demand-response shuttle.

d) There's definitely way too many routes doing that Brentwood - Hauppauge - Central Islip bit (It's bad enough the present-day S45 does that backtrack from Central Islip back up to Hauppauge. Let alone having multiple routes meander around that area).

My Comments - Frequency-Based Network

a) The Port Jefferson - Riverhead portion of the present-day S62 should definitely be kept in one form or another

b) That 77 definitely shouldn't be a standalone route. If they want to combine it with either the 2 or 6, and have a demand-response route cover North Bellport, that might work (depending on how busy that portion of the 7B is, but it definitely shouldn't be left with no service)

c) The 3A should still be kept and then south of Sunrise Highway, routed to cover the Udall Road portion of the present-day S27 into Babylon

d) If you have the 52 running once per hour, you can extend that from Central Islip to Islip via Islip Avenue/NY-111

e) If there isn't any service on the northern portion of Deer Park Avenue, there should at least be some service along Nicholls Road (e.g. Routing the 12 through there)

f) Most of the demand-response areas from the coverage-based network should be kept (the DR1, DR2, DR3, and DR6 should at least be kept).

Coverage

a) Yeah the span is a disappointment. Most of the routes will still run from 6 am-6 pm. 


b) Yeah the 58 deviation to Stony Brook is ridiculous. I feel like Middle County Rd should've been one of the every 30 minutes routes rather than the 54. At least to Smith Haven Mall


c) North Bellport will probably be served better with that micro-transit hubbing towards Patchogue than the current s68


d) Under a coverage system all the routes in that are will arrive/leave at Central Islip at the same time. That is why they all extend out to Central Islip.


Ridership


a) The s62 doesn't really serve much of anyone east of Port Jefferson. It serves a lot of areas, but each time I rode it people who are still on the bus east of PJ, are heading out to Riverhead. Wading River and all those other communities, don't really utilize the bus. It's very similar to Northeast

Nassau County. AT MOST, we could have a microservice out there, but even that may be too much. Port Jeff passengers under both ridership mode can take the 61 to Coram to the 58 or take the 61 to Patchogue for the timed transfer to the 66


b) Yeah 77 is such a short route. I see that it's designed to serve the hospital. Since they are running a pulse at Patchogue, they can afford to extend the 77 further out, like you say, to North Bellport, or North Bellport Outlet


c) I can see the reasoning why they reduced the services out there between Brentwood and SSM. There are simply too many duplicating services running North-South.


d) I guess under this ridership concept, all the passengers will have to transfer at Central Islip to the 17 or the 11 at Brentwood (assuming they are extending the 52 out to Brentwood). It's a timed transfer, which isn't too bad. They figured passengers on the northern end of Islip can walk to Broadway, and south of SSP can walk to Carleton Ave


e) That whole area should at least get microtransit. I don't understand the gap in that area, Is there no ridership on the S29/23 today? I understanding getting rid of one out of two routes, but both routes?


f) I agree (well maybe Riverhead doesn't need one). However, SCT must have a certain budget they gave Jarett Walker, and these are the best possible choices with the budget provided

23 hours ago, Lex said:

As far as I'm concerned, the proposed coverage model was deliberately designed to be utter shit just to try to push people toward the frequency model.

You'd think at least the frequency proposal would expand upon the concept of having a spike in service for the rush periods and a shift to a somewhat lower frequency outside of those periods, but nope. If anything, the proposal calls for a partial retraction of such to the point where only the S110 will have any amount of service at 15-minute intervals or better. 

As much as I'd like to see Sunday service across the entire system, the proposed frequencies for literally every other day are driving me up the wall.

One other thing that irks me is the attempt at keeping the S92 as-is (for the most part), even though the route is basically two separate ones converging in Riverhead, forming a route with much of the island's length with an approximate trip time of three hours. The more consistent schedule and greater span are nice and all, but it's obvious that this whole thing was slapped together without nearly as much care as needed.

Peak service is expensive to provide, because it requires vehicles sitting at the yard, and drivers doing split shifts, which usually carries a pay premium.

While this may not be the final draft, it does shows the extent and the possibilities that SCT is able to afford (which is pitiful). It means that SCT can not afford ANY 15 minute service without sacrificing some areas.

 

MY THOUGHTS

The report on page 58, gave a table on SCT's OTP. The BEST that SCT is able to do is 60%? Seems believable as I have been on SCT routes that are 20-30 minutes late. I have been on a 2A that reached Farmingdale, 30 minutes after it was supposed to depart Farmingdale on the return trip, with the dispatch asking the driver where he is. SCT schedules have been designed for the Suffolk County of the 1960s, and have never changed ever since. Most schedules need more time as noted in the report. 

This is an important paragraph in the report (p65)

If SCT wished to provide the actual frequency of service promised in its current schedules, it would need to provide about 15% more service hours, compared to the service hours it spends today. Both the Concepts have roughly 15% more service hours compared to the existing schedules to account for the slower actual speed, so their resource budgets are in line with actual operations. If the County wished to solve the problem of slower speeds without spending additional resources, both of these concepts would have to show 15% less service

I like the new timed transfer (pulse system). I feel like it may work for a system like SCT. This way passengers don't have to wait an excessively long time for a bus to leave. However, it also means SCT needs to start providing more reliable bus services. 

There are still NO ROUTES to the areas along Rt 109? No microtransit, no new bus route? What gives?

I am not sure if a microtransit can do the entire area of Southampton all the way out to Montauk Lighthouse. That distance is WAYYY too far. It's almost like they expected, no one will use that.

Like I said earlier, I feel like the S58 should've been a frequent route. I can see why they terminate it at Hauppauge however. At the very least, the transfers at the NYS office between the 6 (S54) and the 58 should be timed.

The town of Huntington is really wasting resources competing with SCT with duplicating services. They could really combine the H10/40 into one WWM to Northport VA route via Depot Rd, and force everyone on the 7 (s41). They can have another route from Huntington to Cold Spring Harbor to replace the western part of the H10, and implement a timed transfer at Huntington.

S110 is untouched. I guess SCT is not funding that route, and instead, NYS is? That probably explains why it hasn't been cut yet.

 

 

Edited by Mtatransit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 5/6/2021 at 3:36 AM, Mtatransit said:

Under a coverage system all the routes in that are will arrive/leave at Central Islip at the same time. That is why they all extend out to Central Islip.

Which makes it even more pointless that they are all running that loop. You'd have a minimum of two buses running back-to-back at each pulse (pretty much something would be running with the 6 at every pulse...hopefully they would at least alternate the 9 and 11 in that scenario so that you effectively have a bus along the Hauppauge/Brentwood/Hauppauge corridor every 30 minutes). 

On 5/6/2021 at 3:36 AM, Mtatransit said:

I can see the reasoning why they reduced the services out there between Brentwood and SSM. There are simply too many duplicating services running North-South.

That much I get (running from Brentwood to South Shore Mall specifically), but the issue is that the Manatuck Blvd corridor is isolated from 5th Avenue. On the eastern side of Brentwood, at least the street grid allows you to generally walk from Islip Avenue over to Broadway, but the same can't be said for the North Bay Shore/Pine Aire area.

On 5/6/2021 at 3:36 AM, Mtatransit said:

MY THOUGHTS

The report on page 58, gave a table on SCT's OTP. The BEST that SCT is able to do is 60%? Seems believable as I have been on SCT routes that are 20-30 minutes late. I have been on a 2A that reached Farmingdale, 30 minutes after it was supposed to depart Farmingdale on the return trip, with the dispatch asking the driver where he is. SCT schedules have been designed for the Suffolk County of the 1960s, and have never changed ever since. Most schedules need more time as noted in the report. 

This is an important paragraph in the report (p65)

If SCT wished to provide the actual frequency of service promised in its current schedules, it would need to provide about 15% more service hours, compared to the service hours it spends today. Both the Concepts have roughly 15% more service hours compared to the existing schedules to account for the slower actual speed, so their resource budgets are in line with actual operations. If the County wished to solve the problem of slower speeds without spending additional resources, both of these concepts would have to show 15% less service

The other thing is the recovery times on some routes are minimal. For example, the 6A, 7B, S33 and S68 have no layover on the eastern end (and I've heard mixed things about the S27, but I don't believe it does either). 

On 5/6/2021 at 3:36 AM, Mtatransit said:

There are still NO ROUTES to the areas along Rt 109? No microtransit, no new bus route? What gives?

Agreed.

On 5/6/2021 at 3:36 AM, Mtatransit said:

Like I said earlier, I feel like the S58 should've been a frequent route. I can see why they terminate it at Hauppauge however. At the very least, the transfers at the NYS office between the 6 (S54) and the 58 should be timed.

It ends at Central Islip under the coverage-based proposal, and Brentwood under the frequency-based proposal.

On 5/6/2021 at 3:36 AM, Mtatransit said:

North Bellport will probably be served better with that micro-transit hubbing towards Patchogue than the current s68

I was thinking of a route from SCCC to Bellport via Horseblock Road and Bellport Avenue (that would require one bus if it ran every hour). If they wanted to invest a bit more, they could extend it into the Mastic/Shirley area. (I can't see them extending it to Patchogue...though I can picture them extending the 77 to Bellport Outlets like you mentioned and having people transfer)

EDIT: I just realized something: On this page they mention the public meeting. The first one was May 5th from 6pm - 8pm. The next one is on May 21st from 12pm - 2pm.

Edited by checkmatechamp13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2021 at 10:50 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Hopefully they would at least alternate the 9 and 11 in that scenario so that you effectively have a bus along the Hauppauge/Brentwood/Hauppauge corridor every 30 minutes). 

I hope they do that as well. But SCT does not feel like the type of organization to do something creative like that. I mean... many of their routes haven't been changed probably since the1960 or earlier

On 5/9/2021 at 10:50 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

That much I get (running from Brentwood to South Shore Mall specifically), but the issue is that the Manatuck Blvd corridor is isolated from 5th Avenue. On the eastern side of Brentwood, at least the street grid allows you to generally walk from Islip Avenue over to Broadway, but the same can't be said for the North Bay Shore/Pine Aire area.

A mix of ridership/coverage option will probably be selected. Manatuck Blvd seems inaccessible from the east in general. Certainly in that area, the coverage option is better, though,

However I don't believe you need service on both Islip Avenue and Broadway, as well on both Brentwood and 5th Avenue.

Instead of having 3 30 minute service (7,11,17). You would have the 7 every hour on Manatuck Blvd, 9 every hour on 5th/Brentwood/, 13 every half hour on Broadway/Commack Rd,  and 17 every half hour on Carleton Ave. I don't think Connetquot Ave should have a dedicated service. It is rather inaccessible as well due to SSP, but I don't believe ridership will be high enough. 

The 7 and 9 will alternate every 30 minutes.

On 5/9/2021 at 10:50 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

The other thing is the recovery times on some routes are minimal. For example, the 6A, 7B, S33 and S68 have no layover on the eastern end (and I've heard mixed things about the S27, but I don't believe it does either). 

I don't believe S27 has ANY layover time at Hauppauge as well. Operators would do that loop and head back straight to Babylon. At Babylon, they have a 12 min layover time. This is of course from the timetable, and SCT rarely interlines.

However when I rode the S27, the same driver does the run back and fourth, (late mind you) so that may be how they are operating it. Their GTFS data for Transit App seems to see it that way as well.

Even, routes with layovers, usually they are like 5 minutes. Which considering SCT's outdated operating run times is not enough. 

I was coming off the S58 at its terminus, H SQ mall (ridiculous terminus), the last S54 of the night was 45 minutes late... so late that my transfer expired. I was relieved that it showed up, otherwise its a long walk to Walt Whitman.

On 5/9/2021 at 10:50 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

It ends at Central Islip under the coverage-based proposal, and Brentwood under the frequency-based proposal.

To be honest, I think both Rt 25 and Vet Mem Highway services (6 and 58) should have service to WW Mall. 

My proposal is to have the 6 run every 30 minute between Central Islip and Patchogue and every 60 minutes running the whole route between WWM and Patchogue.

58 will run from WWM to Riverhead every 60 minutes, alternating with the 6 providing service every 30 minutes between WWM and Commack Macys. I would even detour the 58 down Old Willets Path to serve the DMV, and back up Rt 111 Hauppauge Road, where it will join back to the 25 at Smithtown. Now scheduling this service probably much harder

On 5/9/2021 at 10:50 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I was thinking of a route from SCCC to Bellport via Horseblock Road and Bellport Avenue (that would require one bus if it ran every hour). If they wanted to invest a bit more, they could extend it into the Mastic/Shirley area. (I can't see them extending it to Patchogue...though I can picture them extending the 77 to Bellport Outlets like you mentioned and having people transfer)

It could theatrically work as a nice crosstown route, with a timed transfer to the 77 at Bellport Outlet. It wouldn't hit any of the pulses however, which means ridership may be on the lower side. I'm not sure if its worth having the route go to Mastic Shirley however. I would just terminate it in the village of Bellport and force everyone to transfer to the 66

I would still prefer a microtransit style service covering the area including Bellport, the hospital and bordering Horseback Rd pulsing at Patchogue. If they can find a way to coordinate the schedules of the micro transit to the 61 bus along Medford. They could have two bus driving around town connecting all the way from SCCC to Bellport connecting people to the 61 which will run every 30 minutes. If the transfer is close, the operator can always radio.

 

Edited by Mtatransit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I hope they do that as well. But SCT does not feel like the type of organization to do something creative like that. I mean... many of their routes haven't been changed probably since the1960 or earlier

I mean, they're doing this redesign, and they also have the consultant helping them, so there's a chance they'd get it right. But then again, this same consultant said:

Quote

Yet, this approach cannot be combined with the use of pulsing at key transfer points. For a pulse to work, all routes must be scheduled to arrive at the same time. So two 60-minute routes running on the same street, approaching a pulse point would have buses running down the street, serving the same stops around the same time each hour.

The thing of course is that not every route needs to connect to every other route. Taking the coverage-based network and its pulse at Bay Shore, you have the 7, 9, 11, and 13 all connecting to Brentwood, and then the 12 making connections to points west. So you can run the 7/11 on one pulse and the 9/13 on the other pulse. (So they'd have to pick which pulse to connect the 12 to...the 2 can connect with both pulses since it's every 30 minutes)

15 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

However I don't believe you need service on both Islip Avenue and Broadway, as well on both Brentwood and 5th Avenue.

Instead of having 3 30 minute service (7,11,17). You would have the 7 every hour on Manatuck Blvd, 9 every hour on 5th/Brentwood/, 13 every half hour on Broadway/Commack Rd,  and 17 every half hour on Carleton Ave. I don't think Connetquot Ave should have a dedicated service. It is rather inaccessible as well due to SSP, but I don't believe ridership will be high enough. 

The 7 and 9 will alternate every 30 minutes.

If you're combining 5th/Brentwood into one route, it should definitely be every 30 minutes. I get what you're generally getting at (North Bay Shore gets its service more coverage-oriented, while Brentwood proper gets its service more frequency-oriented), but the way I see it, 5th & Brentwood would easily warrant hourly routes on their own. The S45 by itself is half-hourly for a good portion of the day and gets good ridership in that area (that's what irks me...the S54 doesn't offer 30 minute headways for the entire midday but yet it's included as a "frequent route", but the S45 isn't)

15 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

To be honest, I think both Rt 25 and Vet Mem Highway services (6 and 58) should have service to WW Mall. 

My proposal is to have the 6 run every 30 minute between Central Islip and Patchogue and every 60 minutes running the whole route between WWM and Patchogue.

58 will run from WWM to Riverhead every 60 minutes, alternating with the 6 providing service every 30 minutes between WWM and Commack Macys. I would even detour the 58 down Old Willets Path to serve the DMV, and back up Rt 111 Hauppauge Road, where it will join back to the 25 at Smithtown. Now scheduling this service probably much harder

I don't disagree with your line of thinking, but at the same time I can see where they're coming from (Brentwood being a relatively high-density residential area, providing a connection to the Ronkonkoma Branch)

  But I do like your idea as well. Each individual portion of the 6 gets 30 minute service and it's only full-length riders that get hourly service (and actually, if you have those short-turns end at Hauppauge, you can time those to connect with the S58 for points west).

Another idea could be that if they kept the S58 ending in Brentwood, they could have the 6 alternate between running straight up NY-454 vs. Old Willets Path to Jericho Turnpike (I guess it all comes down to whether or not they have that circulator running in the Smithtown/Commack area)

15 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

It could theatrically work as a nice crosstown route, with a timed transfer to the 77 at Bellport Outlet. It wouldn't hit any of the pulses however, which means ridership may be on the lower side. I'm not sure if its worth having the route go to Mastic Shirley however. I would just terminate it in the village of Bellport and force everyone to transfer to the 66

I would still prefer a microtransit style service covering the area including Bellport, the hospital and bordering Horseback Rd pulsing at Patchogue. If they can find a way to coordinate the schedules of the micro transit to the 61 bus along Medford. They could have two bus driving around town connecting all the way from SCCC to Bellport connecting people to the 61 which will run every 30 minutes. If the transfer is close, the operator can always radio.

That's the point: The microtransit wouldn't have an actual schedule. You would call in advance, and based on your location and the location of the other passengers traveling around the same time as you, the dispatcher would coordinate the best route. 

Thinking of another idea, how about this:

52: Split up into Central Islip - Gordon Heights. and Central Islip - Bellport (Hourly on each branch, Bellport buses take College Road - Blue Point Road to serve SCCC and provide a bit of extra coverage in that area)

56: Hourly service from Walt Whitman Mall - Gordon Heights

58: Hourly service from Brentwood - Riverhead

This way, Gordon Heights maintains 30 minute headways (The 52 and 56 would alternate through the area), and the Smithtown - Coram corridor gets 30 minute headways (the 56 and 58 would alternate along the corridor), and you have a connection along NY-25/Middle Country Road from the Walt Whitman Mall. 

Also, for the 58, I think the span should definitely be increased, but if they want to be cheap, they can run it bihourly from 6pm - 10pm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just realized with the coverage-based proposal, they have the S62 covering the western portion of the present-day 8A, and they also have the Riverhead transfer point at the LIRR station rather than the Riverhead County Center. (Looking at it again, they could've easily just had the S58 run past the Peconic Bay Medical Center)

I just thought of another idea. In the frequency-based proposal, perhaps that gap along Udall Road & Bay Shore Road can be covered by a Babylon - Walt Whitman Mall route (basically, that 3 from the coverage-based proposal, modified to swing over down Bay Shore Road & Udall Road en route to Babylon).

Also, what does everyone think about the productivity/efficiency chart on page 51? For me, I was expecting the S60, 3A, and 3B to be a bit higher, and the S42 & 3C to be a bit lower.

Edited by checkmatechamp13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Also, what does everyone think about the productivity/efficiency chart on page 51? For me, I was expecting the S60, 3A, and 3B to be a bit higher, and the S42 & 3C to be a bit lower.

I still have to get to my overall assessment of these "concepts", but to opine on this part of the post right quick, I'm more surprised at how far the S62 has fallen (although yes, it's bad enough that just about half the routes fall between that 10-15 boardings/hour range [including all the routes you mentioned], and that more of the remaining half of the routes fall below 10 boardings/hour than above 15 boardings/hour)....

On 5/5/2021 at 3:40 AM, Lex said:

As far as I'm concerned, the proposed coverage model was deliberately designed to be utter shit just to try to push people toward the frequency model.

These "concepts" are utter shit either way AFAIC, but I actually think there's going to be more of a gravitation towards (an alteration of) the coverage model..... I'd say most bus riders throughout the county are already used to >30 min. long waits for buses or whatever... I say an alteration of the coverage model because I don't think when it's all said & done, there'll be as many total routes they have illustrated in that part of the plan....

On 5/6/2021 at 3:36 AM, Mtatransit said:

- That whole area should at least get microtransit. I don't understand the gap in that area, Is there no ridership on the S29/23 today? I understanding getting rid of one out of two routes, but both routes?

- I like the new timed transfer (pulse system). I feel like it may work for a system like SCT. This way passengers don't have to wait an excessively long time for a bus to leave. However, it also means SCT needs to start providing more reliable bus services.

- In the "ridership" model, the idea is that most people that are taking S23's or S29's to Wyandanch from Whitman Mall would take the S1 to that "12" route.... I don't necessarily agree either that both routes should be ousted, but the fact of the matter is that ridership is abysmal on the S23 & S29 north of Nicolls rd., of people that are not going to/coming from the mall...

- TBH, IDRC for a pulse system for SCT.... I've said this in a post or two before, the current ridership in/out of Patchogue doesn't exist because the lion's share of the riders actually want Patchogue (Lol), it exists because a shit ton of xferring is being done there.... I'll get more into it in my overall assessment; don't have the time right now (the way I want to) opine on these "concepts" (proposals)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So after taking a look, I have some more ideas/elaboration on previous ideas (again, using the ridership-based network as a baseline)

S8 between SUNY Farmingdale & Babylon via Farmingdale LIRR, North Amityville, and Herzl Blvd

S51 modified to run a bit deeper into residential Holbrook, and also into residential Patchogue (Also, a second branch would operate via Stony Brook Road), with each branch running hourly

Slight extension of S11 to Union Blvd (For an easier connection to the Bay Shore LIRR station)

S5 becomes an hourly route, with saved resources used to recreate S3 from the coverage-based proposal (Babylon - Walt Whitman route)

S12 rerouted to Bay Shore Road - Commack Road - Nicolls Road

S9 hourly route between Brentwood & Babylon via Manatuck Blvd & Udall Road

S54 has an hourly branch via Old Willets Path

S58 tweaked to serve the DMV

Also, as a general comment, I think the destination signs of the SCT routes should have a "via _____" portion wherever possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.