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

Posted (edited)
On 6/1/2021 at 1:40 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

 

S8 I like the general idea of having some service there but I would keep it on route 109 between Herzel and Babylon. 

To be honest, I think having some sort of rush hour demand response service between Farmingdale LIRR and those office parks along Rt 110 could work. The S1 serves it right now, but Rt 110 is just so pedestrian unfriendly

I would instead route the S4 down Little E Neck Rd and Herzel Blvd like this

I can not figure out where the S5 will go north of the Ronkonkoma Line tracks.

For the area of S3 there could be some sort of demand response covering that area, pulsing to WWM

S12 I like that routing

For S9 I don't think Udall Ave has enough ridership for a bus every hour

S6 (S54) via Old Willet Path and Rt25A, with alternate branch serving Vet-Mem? Agreed. Preferably they maintain a semblance of transfers between S58 and S6 at Old-Willets and Rt 25A. 

I still think people from Smith Haven Mall on the S58 wants to get to points along 25A and not Central Islip. I don't think riders would appreciate that transfer there either

 

 

 

Edited by Mtatransit
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 254
  • Created
  • Last Reply
54 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

S8 I like the general idea of having some service there but I would keep it on route 109 between Herzel and Babylon. 

To be honest, I think having some sort of rush hour demand response service between Farmingdale LIRR and those office parks along Rt 110 could work. The S1 serves it right now, but Rt 110 is just so pedestrian unfriendly

I would instead route the S4 down Little E Neck Rd and Herzel Blvd like this

I can not figure out where the S5 will go north of the Ronkonkoma Line tracks.

For the area of S3 there could be some sort of demand response covering that area, pulsing to WWM

S12 I like that routing

For S9 I don't think Udall Ave has enough ridership for a bus every hour

S6 (S54) via Old Willet Path and Rt25A, with alternate branch serving Vet-Mem? Agreed. Preferably they maintain a semblance of transfers between S58 and S6 at Old-Willets and Rt 25A. 

I still think people from Smith Haven Mall on the S58 wants to get to points along 25A and not Central Islip. I don't think riders would appreciate that transfer there either

Good point on having the Straight Path bus (S4) serve it rather than the NY-109 bus (S8). 

The S5 will basically run straight up Commack Road to the Pilgrim Hospital/SCCC area, and then swing down to Brentwood (via Crooked Hill Road, while the S7 runs down Wicks Road) and terminate at Central Islip.

For the northern portion of Deer Park, I don't think demand is spread out enough to warrant a demand-response route. I get that there's a few other major roads in that area (Straight Path, Old Country Road), but I think a route straight down that portion of Deer Park Avenue is sufficient.

For the S9, there's a pocket of high ridership right around Bay Shore Road & Udall Road on the present-day S27 & 2A (not sure which of the two the riders prefer). I think it would do decently, considering the two endpoints of the route (Brentwood & Babylon)

I would have the S58 run down Maple Avenue (CR-15) and Hauppauge Road (NY-111) and get into Hauppauge that way. So you'd have the connection with both branches of the S6 (as well as the other routes in Hauppauge). I'm not sure of how exactly to handle service within Hauppauge, considering that the North Complex, Dennison Building, and NYS Offices aren't really walkable to each other, so it sounds like some sort of timed transfer would be in order involving the S11 or S17, since they are proposed to terminate in the area (Rather than trying to have the S6 & S58 loop through all of those complexes).

I think the general logic of having the S58 end in Brentwood (or Central Islip in the coverage-based proposal) is to have a bus connection from Riverhead to the three eastern LIRR branches: Montauk (S66), Port Jefferson (S58 at Smithtown), and Ronkonkoma (S58 at Brentwood). Obviously there is a rail connection, but aside from the high fares and ridiculously low frequency, it also involves a transfer, so it's not even a direct ride.

From Smith Haven specifically, you have a point that the S4 connects you directly to Brentwood/Central Islip (even from Coram Plaza, the S52 takes a shorter/more direct route to Central Islip). It almost sounds like some sort of S52/S58 swap would be in order, but then you have the opposite problem (Losing the direct connection from Smith Haven to Riverhead, and also the Riverhead - Hauppauge connection since the S62 is going to Smith Haven at best). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

For the northern portion of Deer Park, I don't think demand is spread out enough to warrant a demand-response route. I get that there's a few other major roads in that area (Straight Path, Old Country Road), but I think a route straight down that portion of Deer Park Avenue is sufficient.

For the S9, there's a pocket of high ridership right around Bay Shore Road & Udall Road on the present-day S27 & 2A (not sure which of the two the riders prefer). I think it would do decently, considering the two endpoints of the route (Brentwood & Babylon)

I was just thinking about ways to serve these two markets without duplicating others route too much. This is what I got

This route will connect up with the S6 at HSQ and serves northern Deer Park Avenue. Passengers needing Brentwood/Central Islip will transfer at Tangers Outlet, and connect with the S12 at Bayshore/Udall for Bay shore LIRR

I was debating on if this service should serve Deer Park Railroad. It wouldn't be tied to any pulse as this service will be strictly coverage, and this service will require 2 buses. 

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

From Smith Haven specifically, you have a point that the S4 connects you directly to Brentwood/Central Islip (even from Coram Plaza, the S52 takes a shorter/more direct route to Central Islip). It almost sounds like some sort of S52/S58 swap would be in order, but then you have the opposite problem (Losing the direct connection from Smith Haven to Riverhead, and also the Riverhead - Hauppauge connection since the S62 is going to Smith Haven at best). 

I guess passengers will have to get used to take the S58 to Smith Haven to the S4 to the S6 (all of which is a timed transfer) to get to points west of Old Willets Path along Rt 25A (assuming your alternate S6 scenario). Passengers east of Old Willets will probably just stay on the S58. 

Depending on implementation, this could be slighly better or worse than the current scenario (s58-->s54) which is not timed

I think they did that to reduce duplication along 25A between the S58 and the S54. 

Suffolk Clipper is not touched for some reason, I guess SCT doesn't fund the route?

Edited by Mtatransit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I was just thinking about ways to serve these two markets without duplicating others route too much. This is what I got

This route will connect up with the S6 at HSQ and serves northern Deer Park Avenue. Passengers needing Brentwood/Central Islip will transfer at Tangers Outlet, and connect with the S12 at Bayshore/Udall for Bay shore LIRR

I was debating on if this service should serve Deer Park Railroad. It wouldn't be tied to any pulse as this service will be strictly coverage, and this service will require 2 buses. 

I guess passengers will have to get used to take the S58 to Smith Haven to the S4 to the S6 (all of which is a timed transfer) to get to points west of Old Willets Path along Rt 25A (assuming your alternate S6 scenario). Passengers east of Old Willets will probably just stay on the S58. 

Depending on implementation, this could be slighly better or worse than the current scenario (s58-->s54) which is not timed

I think they did that to reduce duplication along 25A between the S58 and the S54. 

Suffolk Clipper is not touched for some reason, I guess SCT doesn't fund the route?

If such a route were to be created, I wouldn't have it serve Deer Park. The S12 already connects the Baywood area to Wyandanch for those seeking the Main Line specifically, and the S9 connects to Babylon (and a NY-109 route would better serve Babylon - Main Line trips)

The big issue with that route is the amount of dead mileage along the northern end of Deer Park Avenue. I'd still have it swing over to Walt Whitman like the S3 in the coverage-based proposal.

While reducing that bit of duplication along NY-25 (NY-25A is further north, past the LIRR Port Jefferson Branch) might've been a factor that crossed their mind, I think the bigger issue was trying to connect the S58 with Hauppauge and the Brentwood/Central Islip area (like we discussed, swinging through Hauppauge isn't particularly difficult, but it's basically a tradeoff between serving a commercial area on Jericho Turnpike vs. a dense residential area by Brentwood/Central Islip.

And long story short, SCT gets reimbursed for the Clipper, but hopefully they will take a look at it anyway to see if it can be made more useful. (But as of now, the main focus is on the all-day network). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Does anyone happen to have the link to the 2009 Suffolk County bus study? I know there were a few proposals from way back when that were similar to these proposals (I know a 3D extension to Amityville was definitely one of them)

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.