Suffolk County Draft Plan Released

[GojiMet86]

10 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Has the whole system been discontinued? 

Nope, it's still running. You can check on Transloc and see buses still moving:

https://sct.transloc.com/

[checkmatechamp13]

https://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/

[danielhg121]

Oh they had a presentation a couple days ago. They made some changes to the draft plan. Some new routes being added or routings being amended. I believe this is the Final Network Presentation.

https://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/pdf/TWG Presentation on Final Network_Reimagine Transit_Final.pdf

[checkmatechamp13]

11 hours ago, danielhg121 said:

Oh they had a presentation a couple days ago. They made some changes to the draft plan. Some new routes being added or routings being amended. I believe this is the Final Network Presentation.

https://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/pdf/TWG Presentation on Final Network_Reimagine Transit_Final.pdf

I hope they didn't cut corners in terms of the service span, since it looks like it's all added service compared to the draft plan (Some of it necessary, some of it definitely questionable)

The S5 extended to Smith Haven via Hauppauge makes more sense than duplicating the S4 (and LIRR) to Central Islip, but I think it's a bit overkill to have the S4, S5, and S58 all running between Smith Haven & Brentwood.

The S52 turned into a bidirectional loop (similar to the present-day S20) makes a lot of sense (and also helps cover the Farmingville portion of the present-day S63)

I hope the S77Y doesn't do the same thing the present-day S68 does, where they just widen the headway and extend the trips out to Horseblock Road (they should add an extra bus to account for the branch/diversion to Yaphank)

The S3 and S10 meander a lot unnecessarily (especially the S10...they should've just branched the S2 in that area, or extended the S3 or S5 to GSB Shopping Center rather than do all the meandering). 

Glad to see the S62 was maintained (and with Sunday service added)

The S80 is really pointless. There's barely anything along Middle Road, and if they wanted to serve the senior apartments just north of the hospital, they could've extended the S66 there. (On the bright side, I definitely agree with making the transfer point at the LIRR station rather than the County Center)

[The TransitMan]

On 12/11/2022 at 8:26 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I hope they didn't cut corners in terms of the service span, since it looks like it's all added service compared to the draft plan (Some of it necessary, some of it definitely questionable)

The S5 extended to Smith Haven via Hauppauge makes more sense than duplicating the S4 (and LIRR) to Central Islip, but I think it's a bit overkill to have the S4, S5, and S58 all running between Smith Haven & Brentwood.

The S52 turned into a bidirectional loop (similar to the present-day S20) makes a lot of sense (and also helps cover the Farmingville portion of the present-day S63)

I hope the S77Y doesn't do the same thing the present-day S68 does, where they just widen the headway and extend the trips out to Horseblock Road (they should add an extra bus to account for the branch/diversion to Yaphank)

The S3 and S10 meander a lot unnecessarily (especially the S10...they should've just branched the S2 in that area, or extended the S3 or S5 to GSB Shopping Center rather than do all the meandering). 

Glad to see the S62 was maintained (and with Sunday service added)

The S80 is really pointless. There's barely anything along Middle Road, and if they wanted to serve the senior apartments just north of the hospital, they could've extended the S66 there. (On the bright side, I definitely agree with making the transfer point at the LIRR station rather than the County Center)

That S66 is long enough as it is WITH the extension to the LIRR (which is about time) and I'm kind of ok with the Peconic Bay Medical Center...BUT that S80? Removing service from Calverton will not go over well. I know some people who live in that area and again it will not go over well.

[checkmatechamp13]

10 hours ago, The TransitMan said:

That S66 is long enough as it is WITH the extension to the LIRR (which is about time) and I'm kind of ok with the Peconic Bay Medical Center...BUT that S80? Removing service from Calverton will not go over well. I know some people who live in that area and again it will not go over well.

Part of it is mitigated with the timed transfer point at Riverhead (so a bit of recovery time will be built into the schedule at Riverhead LIRR station)

If the S92 were split at Riverhead, perhaps one of those splits could head over to Calverton. 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Looked at the changes, took some time to think about it. If that is indeed the final draft of the network, there's still a lot to be desired there, although they have made some improvements in certain areas. Here's what I have to say regarding this final draft:

Central Suffolk

S51: I'm not exactly sure whether having 30 minute service between Patchogue and Ronkonkoma will necessarily catch on, especially since at one point they were running minibuses on the existing 7A route IINM (before the ARBOCs showed up). I also don't like how service between Ronkonkoma and Sayville was cut altogether. There should have been a branch of the S51 to Sayville (whether a whole new number or something, IDK). Each branch would have had hourly service. Yeah the S57 and S59 ridership isn't all that hot but I don't think that entire area should be left without any north-south service. 

S52: I still don't believe that the S52 should have been one of those frequent routes, especially considering the changes they made. I would have had it operate hourly on its original alignment. Also the half-hourly service to SCCC bit is misleading, because even though all buses serve SCCC, if you're on the 52B, you're gonna have to go through Farmingville, Gordon Heights, and Coram before you get to SCCC. There's no indication looking at the S52B route map that it'll head up to SCCC first, so effectively you'll arrive there on a S52B -> 52A bus at around the same time as if you wait for the next 52A bus. 

After thinking about it, I would actually take a different approach with this, while trying to use a similar amount of buses. The proposed S52 would have to have a 3 hour cycle, so for the proposed 30 minute headway, there would be a need for 6 buses. What I have in mind is taking care of those segments with a shortened S52, in addition to bringing back a modified version of the S71, as follows:

• S52: Ronkonkoma LIRR to Gordon Heights - every 60 minutes (2 buses)
• S71: Central Islip LIRR to Shirley (Montauk Hwy/William Floyd Pkwy), via Motor Parkway, Portion Road, Horseblock Road, CR 101, LIE, William Floyd Parkway, and the following:
  • via SCCC (Weekdays only)
  • Brookhaven Town Hall (8:30 AM - 3:30 PM Weekdays Only)
  • Yaphank Offices (6 AM - 6 PM Weekdays Only)
  • Yaphank Walmart Supercenter

Weekday daytime runtimes would be from around 90-100 minutes (requiring 4 buses), weekday evening and weekend runtimes would be around 72-80 minutes (requiring 3 buses). 

S58: I guess they're still hellbent on sending this route to Brentwood. While I personally don't care too much about that (especially since they have the S5 also doing something similar to/from Smith Haven Mall), I can't agree with leaving that part of Jericho Turnpike between Commack Plaza and Old Willets without service, nor Jericho Turnpike without continuous service. 

Whatever they decide to do with the S58 west of Smith Haven is what it is I suppose. However I would have tried my hand at running an inter-county route here along Jericho Turnpike, operating to Walt Whitman Mall, and then via Syosset towards Hicksville. You would be able to connect to various NICE routes on the Nassau end, and SCT routes on the Smith Haven end, and then other SCT + HART routes at intermediate locations. Here's basically what I had in mind.

I do think that this type of route (which I labeled 'S56' as a placeholder) would be able to catch on, and I think hourly would be okay for this type of service (maybe even half hourly could work).

Also worth considering, that if SCT wanted to, they could also look into an operating agreement with NICE and HART, kinda like how the Coastal Link bus is operated in CT. The hourly service would require three buses at a time, and about a third of the route falls under one of the three agencies' operating jurisdiction. If HART was considered, then the H40 could get axed and those resources would be used on that S56 route. NICE also seems to be experimenting with new services as of recent, and I personally think that if it partially operated the S56, it would be worth it (also it would serve areas not covered by NICE currently). The main issue which may throw a wrench to all of this is the fare system structure. 

The S5 would have doing something different as a result, and the S58 would also be affected as well (see the S5 comments in the western Suffolk section below).

S66: I still don't think that service along South Country Road should be eliminated, it's not that close from Montauk Highway at all. If they really want they can branch the service out there, at roughly the same frequencies as they currently are. 

S77/S77Y: Yeah I agree with having it go further down to Bellport, still there's enough runtime to operate hourly with one bus and I think it would be a more useful rendition of the S68. I suppose if the S77 & 77Y are spaced out, then they can be useful. However i don't think it's enough to leave Bellport Village with just the 77 (see my S66 comments)

East End (Riverhead & Both Forks) 

10C/S80: They eliminated the 10C presumably due to low overall ridership (by bus though is a different story), meanwhile they're basically adding a route (S80) which is effectively a de-facto shuttle to/from the Wesley Village Apartments, that will garner even less ridership than the existing 8A, SMH. There's no reason why East Hampton and Montauk should be part of the same microtransit zone to begin with, because there isn't much flexibility in getting between Montauk and Amangansett, which takes a while to get between points. The 10C ridership isn't anything to ignore either. 

What I would do is get rid of that microtransit zone, and run the 10C as a flexi route, with a fixed route between East Hampton LIRR and Montauk Village, with flexi stops along its current loop & the lighthouse (seasonal). During the summer, since Hampton Hopper does a very similar loop in Montauk (for free), I would just have 10C buses go to the lighthouse when Hampton Hopper is running. For the one bus on the S80, you can have the 10C as an actual loop route on a bi-hourly headway, timed with the S92. 

Whether a microtransit zone should exist for East Hampton, Springs, and areas further to the west (Wainscot, Bridgehampton, etc) instead of having the 10B around, I guess is debatable. Alternatively if you run the 10C between Bridgehampton (from Montauk Highway & Hull Lane, not the Commons) to Montauk, it is possible to run the service on a three hour headway (like it currently is), and then have a microtransit option out there covering some of the areas around East Hampton. Personally I'm not all that big on microtransit outright replacing fixed routes though. It just doesn't make sense in the case of the 10C. 

S58: They have this route operating on NYS-25 in Riverhead IINM? There's a lot more on Old Country Road, even if it will take longer. IDK their reasons for changing it to that were, but if it was because of the S62, I don't find that to be a compelling reason. 

S62: Glad to see that they're keeping the S62, and they honestly kept more than what I would have anticipated. The only change I would make though, is that this route should be the one serving Wesley Village, instead of creating a whole new route for that purpose. That'll provide service to basically the same locations as the S80, plus more. 

S92: They show this route as blue (running every 60 minutes), so I'm wondering are they actually gonna cut the service down to hourly all day? I recall somewhere that there would still be pockets of more frequent service during the day, but curious if any of these additions came from there.

Western Suffolk

S2: Given what I would do the S3 and S10 (see comments below), I would have the S2 branching between Montauk Highway and Albin Ave / East John Street between Wellwood Avenue and Babylon LIRR. The S3/S5 (either one) and the modified S25 should connect to/from the S2 via Montauk Highway at Babylon LIRR, for service to/from Great South Bay. 

S3/S5: I find it absurd how there's no north-south service on Udall Road, but the areas along the existing S25 will now have TWO routes (the proposed S3 and S10) running not too far from each other. This S3 is also a more indirect version of the S3 they had on their initial coverage proposal, which should have been part of both proposals IMO. If they really wanted direct service from Babylon to Wyandanch, they could have had a modified version of the S25 running between Babylon and Wyandanch LIRR Stations on hourly headways using one bus, running via Little E. Neck Road, and maybe some of the existing areas S25 serves north of the Southern State there for coverage purposes. 

The S3 should operate every 60 minutes like they mention along the full route, however it should operate solely along Deer Park Avenue between the LIE and Babylon LIRR. In the past I have thought that there should be a short-turn of the S3 on weekdays, however since I would have the S5 running hourly, I would actually keep the S5 as is between Babylon and Brentwood (see below for more). Instead I would have a Udall Road bus between Tanger Outlets and Babylon run hourly, with the savings from having the S5 operate hourly would be used to run the Udall Road service. 

As far as the S5 between Brentwood and Lake Grove (Smith Haven) goes, to me I kinda don't see the point. Between Brentwood and Hauppauge there's the S11 and S58. The S11 is not as direct as the S58, but still, there's fairly frequent service from Brentwood, which is a transfer point. I'd just have it run between Babylon and Brentwood (with some changes), and either have the S58 or a whole new route (replacing both the S5 and S58) between Brentwood and Lake Grove, on hourly headways. I would have to map it out, but it would be like a mix of the two routes (basically the proposed final S5 between Brentwood and Hauppague, then via Smithtown, then along Middle Country Road to/from Smith Haven). Whatever resources are saved over with all these changes together, I would use to allocate for that Hicksville - Lake Grove service I was mentioning earlier (see my S58 comments in the central Suffolk section for more details). 

To see more details on these comments, check out this map here.

S10: The fact that this route made it this far is kinda mind-boggling, because it's like the most indirect thing ever. Who exactly is benefitting from this? You have to go out all the way to Lindenhurst then back to go along Little East Neck Road from Babylon? Whatever S25 riders use the service now (of which there aren't many) would likely not even bother with this. Also, this route would require 2 buses on hourly headways (which I'm putting out as context for what I'm about to mention). 

Given that I would have the S3 cover part of the proposed S10, I would basically blow up the S10 and split it into two hourly routes, each using one bus each. Here are the routes as follows

• S10 - Amityville RR to Airport Plaza and back, via Albany Avenue and East Farmingdale Loop 
• S19 - Babylon to Farmingdale (Airport Plaza), via Route 109

See Map Here

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[checkmatechamp13]

@BM5 via Woodhaven I think part of the reason for the 30 minute service from Patchogue to Ronkonkoma is because the S51 also acts as a replacement for the S63 (Smith Haven to Patchogue, although technically that is still possible by through-riding at Port Jefferson) and also for the Nicolls Road BRT. 

For the S52B, they would just walk from Portion Road to SCCC. No need to ride around the full loop. I think part of it was also looking to link Central Islip to Coram and Gordon Heights with (roughly) half-hourly service. (Especially since Gordon Heights proper is relatively far from Middle Country Road, so the S58 isn't much of an alternative)

I would try a Port Jefferson - Mastic-Shirley route (via Ridge Road and William Floyd Parkway) to provide some better coverage in the vicinity of the old 7D and 5A routes (and of course the Walmart over there)

For Old Country Road, I would have the S77/S77Y replaced with a microtransit route. Most likely buses would end up traveling in some sort of loop to get to/from Patchogue (rather than going all the way up and back down)

The S58 along NY-25 in Riverhead is to partially replace the 8A in that area. For John Wesley Village, I'd have to look at the cycle times for the S62 & S66 to figure out which one is better to serve that area.

For the western part of Jericho Turnpike, I'd try to figure out how to coordinate it with the n79. (My first instinct is to run it down Jackson Avenue in Syosset, but I think ultimately that would be better served by a Hicksville- Oyster Bay route). So in other words, a straight extension of the n79 (and splitting the funding accordingly) would likely be the best way to go about doing so.

[checkmatechamp13]

So I made a spreadsheet with some rough calculations of how many buses each route requires at different times of day (feel free to correct me if I missed anything...I know for the current one I didn't include the S69, since it doesn't run rush hours or middays, and basically just uses the last evening bus off the S60).

Something about the way the cycle time of the S77 makes me suspect a lot of runs will involve a meal break either before, after, or during the S77 trip. (In other words, do a round-trip on a long route like the S2, S6, S66, or S51/S53/S55 combo, and then do a round-trip on the S77, take a lunch break, and then do another round-trip on a long route...probably makes more sense to have the layover on the Patchogue side rather than the Bellport side). And then during rush hour, they might time it so that there's no meal breaks during the few hours the S77Y runs (So it might be two buses for the S77, or three buses for the S77/S77Y). 

At a glance, it looks like there's definitely fewer physical buses being used for the peak service, but the savings are being reinvested into the evening and Sunday service. 

[B35 via Church]

It's good that they revised the S5 to continue along Deer Park av. up to Nichols rd, and I do agree that it didn't have to run to Central Islip specifically.... Personally, I would've chose the S11 for modification (instead of the S5) to run b/w Brentwood & Smith Haven via Hauppauge, but it is what it is.... They have it (S5) serving Smithtown instead of that originally proposed S58 (which they have running along 347 like the current S62 does).... They originally had nothing running along 347 (Smithtown Bypass) west of Smith haven towards Hauppauge, which I actually agreed with.... The need for service is more along rt. 25 up there, which includes folks in Smithtown waiting for (current) S56's or S58 to get to Smith Haven.... OTOH, there's little to no demand particularly for rt. 347, and it isn't a "bypass" for riders in a positive sense either, as it tends to be a slow crawl b/w Hauppauge & Smith Haven anyway.... Waste of mileage.... May as well run service where the people want it....

While there is a need to get to the government bldg's in Hauppauge from the east, quite honestly, I don't think it absolutely has to be served by a route running from as far east as Riverhead.... Currently, the S62 does this, but now the S58 will accomplish this... Aside from straightening the thing, this is why I believe they chose the S58 to run to Hauppauge - to connect that area around Coram Plz, Gordon Hgts, and Middle Island to those government bldg's (much like the S66 connects Mastic & Shirley to the county offices in Riverhead)... I do see the S58 benefiting more from that particular purpose, more than from areas along the current S62 east of Smith Haven..... The problem is that is that they have it (S58) only serving the North Complex (rt. 347 & Old Willets Path) instead of the NYS Office Bldg (the complex east of Raoul Wallenberg dr) - which is where most people are seeking access to, of the 3 government complexes in Hauppauge.... I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I would still have something in the network serving all 3 of them (North complex, Dennison bldg, NYS Office bldg)....

In any case, what I'm ultimately getting at is, regardless of which routing they have the new S58 taking west of Smith Haven, it has no business even running to Brentwood.... You do not need the S5 & the S58 running between Smith Haven & Brentwood via Hauppauge... It is excessive.... Just have the S4 & the S5 running b/w Brentwood & Smith Haven (via [Central Islip] & via [Hauppauge & Smithtown], respectively) & call it a day.

 

[B35 via Church]

On 12/24/2022 at 3:30 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

S51: I'm not exactly sure whether having 30 minute service between Patchogue and Ronkonkoma will necessarily catch on, especially since at one point they were running minibuses on the existing 7A route IINM (before the ARBOCs showed up). I also don't like how service between Ronkonkoma and Sayville was cut altogether. There should have been a branch of the S51 to Sayville (whether a whole new number or something, IDK). Each branch would have had hourly service. Yeah the S57 and S59 ridership isn't all that hot but I don't think that entire area should be left without any north-south service. 

While I do like the idea of it running b/w Ronkonkoma & Pt. Jeff, I do think the S51 as proposed (as in, b/w Patchogue & Pt. Jeff) will catch on, because it eliminates an xfer at Ronkonkoma for points north, for people coming off buses at Patchogue.... The people coming from points north of Ronkonkoma are largely doing so to catch the main line (which is why the S57/S59 dies at LIRR Ronkonkoma itself)... Those people rarely if ever xfer to 7a's...

The people coming from points south of Ronkonkoma on the 7a almost always xfer to the S57 or the S59 for points north.... Nobody really wants to xfer at Ronkonkoma b/w buses (especially when you have S57/S59 having driver changes there, and/or idling there for minutes on end before finally pulling off)..... The problem with the 7a is that it's erratic & sluggish on top of if; much of nobody uses it in North Patchogue, even less so than of people using the S57 or S59 b/w Sayville & Ronkonkoma....

All that said, considering the rest of the impending network, I still don't like the idea of the S51 virtually being a point-to-point shuttle b/w Patchogue & Ronkonkoma (Patchogue-Holbrook rd. is basically a highway; even the 7a diverts to serve Main st in Holbrook before turning off at Union av to get to LIRR Ronkonkoma)... It's beyond retarded to have the S6 basically be the only route in that Central Islip - LIRR Main Line - Patchogue - LIRR Montauk Line pocket/region of the county.... To fill that void b/w Sayville & Ronkonkoma, I would try my hand at a circulator, only terminating at Ronkonkoma - especially if the terminal situation in Sayville is such this problem (from what I've been hearing)...

On 12/24/2022 at 3:30 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

S52: I still don't believe that the S52 should have been one of those frequent routes, especially considering the changes they made. I would have had it operate hourly on its original alignment. Also the half-hourly service to SCCC bit is misleading, because even though all buses serve SCCC, if you're on the 52B, you're gonna have to go through Farmingville, Gordon Heights, and Coram before you get to SCCC. There's no indication looking at the S52B route map that it'll head up to SCCC first, so effectively you'll arrive there on a S52B -> 52A bus at around the same time as if you wait for the next 52A bus. 

After thinking about it, I would actually take a different approach with this, while trying to use a similar amount of buses. The proposed S52 would have to have a 3 hour cycle, so for the proposed 30 minute headway, there would be a need for 6 buses. What I have in mind is taking care of those segments with a shortened S52, in addition to bringing back a modified version of the S71, as follows:

• S52: Ronkonkoma LIRR to Gordon Heights - every 60 minutes (2 buses)
• S71: Central Islip LIRR to Shirley (Montauk Hwy/William Floyd Pkwy), via Motor Parkway, Portion Road, Horseblock Road, CR 101, LIE, William Floyd Parkway, and the following:
  • via SCCC (Weekdays only)
  • Brookhaven Town Hall (8:30 AM - 3:30 PM Weekdays Only)
  • Yaphank Offices (6 AM - 6 PM Weekdays Only)
  • Yaphank Walmart Supercenter

Weekday daytime runtimes would be from around 90-100 minutes (requiring 4 buses), weekday evening and weekend runtimes would be around 72-80 minutes (requiring 3 buses). 

Yeah, I don't think it should be a 30 min route either.... I'd also say they're complicating matters with this 52a/52b bit - Every 30 mins. b/w Central Islip & SCCC Selden, but hourly service if you want faster service to (the glorified xfer point that is) Coram Plz. & hourly service if you want service to Brookhaven Town Hall? I personally wouldn't bother with Mooney Pond (impending 52a/current 6a).... I'd simply have the S52 be a route running b/w Central Islip & Coram Plz. via Gordon Hgts... One thing I never cared for with the S60 is that it terminates in Gordon Hgts; nothing should be terminating there AFAIC....

So yeah, (I'd) have the S52, as 1 route, from Central Islip, running hourly, going on to do [the 52b b/w SCCC Selden & Gordon Hgts.] & via [the 52a b/w Gordon Hgts & Coram Plz.].... Only modification I'd do is to have the route continue along Horseblock to N. Ocean, for access to that Expressway Plaza shopping ctr. that's being/been revamped, before diverting to serve the Brookhaven Town Center....

On 12/24/2022 at 3:30 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

S58: I guess they're still hellbent on sending this route to Brentwood. While I personally don't care too much about that (especially since they have the S5 also doing something similar to/from Smith Haven Mall), I can't agree with leaving that part of Jericho Turnpike between Commack Plaza and Old Willets without service, nor Jericho Turnpike without continuous service. 

Whatever they decide to do with the S58 west of Smith Haven is what it is I suppose. However I would have tried my hand at running an inter-county route here along Jericho Turnpike, operating to Walt Whitman Mall, and then via Syosset towards Hicksville. You would be able to connect to various NICE routes on the Nassau end, and SCT routes on the Smith Haven end, and then other SCT + HART routes at intermediate locations. Here's basically what I had in mind.

I do think that this type of route (which I labeled 'S56' as a placeholder) would be able to catch on, and I think hourly would be okay for this type of service (maybe even half hourly could work).

Also worth considering, that if SCT wanted to, they could also look into an operating agreement with NICE and HART, kinda like how the Coastal Link bus is operated in CT. The hourly service would require three buses at a time, and about a third of the route falls under one of the three agencies' operating jurisdiction. If HART was considered, then the H40 could get axed and those resources would be used on that S56 route. NICE also seems to be experimenting with new services as of recent, and I personally think that if it partially operated the S56, it would be worth it (also it would serve areas not covered by NICE currently). The main issue which may throw a wrench to all of this is the fare system structure. 

The S5 would have doing something different as a result, and the S58 would also be affected as well (see the S5 comments in the western Suffolk section below).

Lol.... You're more or less indifferent to the S58 running to Brentwood (while I strongly disagree with S58's doing that, especially now that they'll have S5's running up to Smith Haven from Brentwood), and I'm more or less indifferent to that gap along Jericho Tpke (while you exude a certain concern with that)....

I'll explain my attitude/indifference regarding the latter.... The thing with the S54 from Whitman is that there's a lot of quote-unquote distance riding going on with that route (from ppl coming off other routes), with a noticeable decline in patronage along Jericho Tpke itself over the years (not sure what the reason{s} for it is, but the phenomenon is quite apparent to me)... It's more or less straggler level along Jericho Tpke. these days, with the exception of ppl. (previously) xferring off other routes to the S54 at Commack Plaza... I say "previously" because I believe now they only have the H10 running inside there?... If that shopping plaza's construction is finished & they put the SCT buses (S54, 56, 58) back there, I wouldn't know - but hopefully they did (Where they had S56's terminating at on that end of the route, yikes)....

To the larger point though, the gripe with the current S58 from riders was always that it didn't go far enough west.... On top of that, the S54 has always been a delay prone route.... So while you have a valid point/concern, I'm not too too worried with that gap along Jericho Tpke b/w Commack Plaza & Old Willets Path, because now with the S6 actually running down to Central Islip (although I still see people xferring for S5's or S11's to Brentwood) instead of doing that bullshit it currently does b/w the county offices in Hauppauge & the southern tip of Islandia (LIRR Main line tracks), it makes the S54 way more attractive... That, and I don't notice much of anyone boarding or disembarking along Jericho Tpke b/w Downtown Smithtown & Commack Plaza.... For Smith Haven access from Jericho Tpke to the west, you'd have to xfer to the S6.... Either way, riders would/will have to xfer {(from S54's to S56's or S58's) or (from the impending S6 to the S5 or S58)}....

As for your "S55", while a noble gesture, I think that is an absolute waste of mileage to have buses running on 25 b/w Jericho (the town, hamlet, whatever it's technically considered) & Smith Haven.... Just the Nassau portion of the route (106 to 25 to the county line) alone would loom brutal, in terms of traffic....

All that said, seperate of anything involving Jericho Tpke, I don't agree with eliminating the S56 either - at least the portion b/w Kings Park & Smith Haven anyway.... Even if it's every other bus, I'd have the S11 at least running up to Siena Hospital...

On 12/24/2022 at 3:30 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

S58: They have this route operating on NYS-25 in Riverhead IINM? There's a lot more on Old Country Road, even if it will take longer. IDK their reasons for changing it to that were, but if it was because of the S62, I don't find that to be a compelling reason. 

S62: Glad to see that they're keeping the S62, and they honestly kept more than what I would have anticipated. The only change I would make though, is that this route should be the one serving Wesley Village, instead of creating a whole new route for that purpose. That'll provide service to basically the same locations as the S80, plus more.

S66: I still don't think that service along South Country Road should be eliminated, it's not that c lose from Montauk Highway at all. If they really want they can branch the service out there, at roughly the same frequencies as they currently are. 

S77/S77Y: Yeah I agree with having it go further down to Bellport, still there's enough runtime to operate hourly with one bus and I think it would be a more useful rendition of the S68. I suppose if the S77 & 77Y are spaced out, then they can be useful. However i don't think it's enough to leave Bellport Village with just the 77 (see my S66 comments)

S92: They show this route as blue (running every 60 minutes), so I'm wondering are they actually gonna cut the service down to hourly all day? I recall somewhere that there would still be pockets of more frequent service during the day, but curious if any of these additions came from there.

The more I look at the system map, the more I'm growing annoyed with what they did in Riverhead (although it's absolutely better than what they proposed in the original draft for the area)....

• S58's bypassing Tanger to cut down on runtime, because they got buses running b/w Smith Haven & Brentwood
• S62's, while at least they reconsidered the moronic decision of eliminating it outright, having it go on to serving more of commercial Riverhead, to eventually have it swing down to the RR station (the latter is what I have a problem with)... Maybe things have changed for the better (in terms of demand), but I never really cared for anything terminating at LIRR Riverhead & don't really see an issue with buses ending at the county offices, but it is what it is...
• Everything that the S80 embodies (it's absolutely a Wesley Village shuttle & it's a  slap in the face to every other private enclave in the county that'll no longer have bus service)....
• The aforementioned/apparent S92 cuts.... Anything to not split the route & provide commensurate service on each "fork"
• Hell, although the S66 gets 30 min. service throughout the day, I'm even now starting to question running S66's up to the Peconic Bay Medical Center

Regarding the S77, regarding my previous commentary for the draft proposal, I made up my mind.... The whole thing needs to be thrown in the garbage; gotta be shittin me with a separate variant for Yaphank County Offices, having originally left Bellport Village with nothing.... I thought it was a waste to have S68's running up there....Way I see it, if they can have S40's running over the S20 to Amityville (which I absolutely despise), they can have S66's running/diverting up to serve N. Bellport up to the outlet center..... To sum it up, have some S66's bypass N. Bellport via Bellport Village/S. Country rd & some S66's directly serve N. Bellport via the S68/7b.... I'd have that impending S53 (which I see carrying relatively light anyway) run over from LIRR Patchogue to Brookhaven Hospital & the rest of the medical center/park over there around Gazzola dr..... No different than they have the impending S62 doing up at Belle Mead rd. in E. Setauket...

On 12/24/2022 at 3:30 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Western Suffolk

S2: Given what I would do the S3 and S10 (see comments below), I would have the S2 branching between Montauk Highway and Albin Ave / East John Street between Wellwood Avenue and Babylon LIRR. The S3/S5 (either one) and the modified S25 should connect to/from the S2 via Montauk Highway at Babylon LIRR, for service to/from Great South Bay. 

S10: The fact that this route made it this far is kinda mind-boggling, because it's like the most indirect thing ever. Who exactly is benefitting from this? You have to go out all the way to Lindenhurst then back to go along Little East Neck Road from Babylon? Whatever S25 riders use the service now (of which there aren't many) would likely not even bother with this. Also, this route would require 2 buses on hourly headways (which I'm putting out as context for what I'm about to mention). 

Given that I would have the S3 cover part of the proposed S10, I would basically blow up the S10 and split it into two hourly routes, each using one bus each. Here are the routes as follows

• S10 - Amityville RR to Airport Plaza and back, via Albany Avenue and East Farmingdale Loop 
• S19 - Babylon to Farmingdale (Airport Plaza), via Route 109

See Map Here

Lol at your S10 commentary.... Can't say I disagree.

Regarding the S2 though, I'd have left the current S40 as is; always hated that long-standing proposal around these parts (not just on this forum in the past) to have combined the S20 & the S40.... The remaining portion of the S2 west of Babylon can be combined with the impending S10 to form a convoluted loop b/w LIRR Amityville & LIRR Babylon for all I care... That's how much I'm against running S40's west of Babylon....

As for your proposals, with your "S19", I most certainly see the need/value in restoring that part of the old N72 - however, I'd run it past 110/Conklin (Airport Plz.) to LIRR Farmingale (or as close to it as is feasibly allowed).... Not sure what to say about your "S10", other than it's better than the impending S10.... It speaks more to (how I view) bus usage in that general area of county, than your proposal itself....

On 12/24/2022 at 3:30 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

S3/S5: I find it absurd how there's no north-south service on Udall Road, but the areas along the existing S25 will now have TWO routes (the proposed S3 and S10) running not too far from each other. This S3 is also a more indirect version of the S3 they had on their initial coverage proposal, which should have been part of both proposals IMO. If they really wanted direct service from Babylon to Wyandanch, they could have had a modified version of the S25 running between Babylon and Wyandanch LIRR Stations on hourly headways using one bus, running via Little E. Neck Road, and maybe some of the existing areas S25 serves north of the Southern State there for coverage purposes. 

The S3 should operate every 60 minutes like they mention along the full route, however it should operate solely along Deer Park Avenue between the LIE and Babylon LIRR. In the past I have thought that there should be a short-turn of the S3 on weekdays, however since I would have the S5 running hourly, I would actually keep the S5 as is between Babylon and Brentwood (see below for more). Instead I would have a Udall Road bus between Tanger Outlets and Babylon run hourly, with the savings from having the S5 operate hourly would be used to run the Udall Road service. 

As far as the S5 between Brentwood and Lake Grove (Smith Haven) goes, to me I kinda don't see the point. Between Brentwood and Hauppauge there's the S11 and S58. The S11 is not as direct as the S58, but still, there's fairly frequent service from Brentwood, which is a transfer point. I'd just have it run between Babylon and Brentwood (with some changes), and either have the S58 or a whole new route (replacing both the S5 and S58) between Brentwood and Lake Grove, on hourly headways. I would have to map it out, but it would be like a mix of the two routes (basically the proposed final S5 between Brentwood and Hauppague, then via Smithtown, then along Middle Country Road to/from Smith Haven). Whatever resources are saved over with all these changes together, I would use to allocate for that Hicksville - Lake Grove service I was mentioning earlier (see my S58 comments in the central Suffolk section for more details). 

To see more details on these comments, check out this map here.

As long as there's service along Deer Park rd. up to Nicolls (revised S5), I couldn't care less what they got the S3 doing south of Nicolls.... You do have a valid point with the S3 & S10 running in close proximity of each other though (especially considering what's being done countywide with far greater coverage gaps)... I believe they brought back this rendition of an S3 for no other reason than to supply service to Five Towns College... AFAIC, that's neither here nor there, being that the draft network had nothing running b/w [Babylon and/or Deer Park/Wyandanch] & [Whitman Mall].... The S23 these days is basically an S29 supplement b/w Babylon (or Deer Park & Wyandanch) & Whitman Mall & the S29 b/w Whitman Mall & Deer Park (not inclusive) carries a shit ton of air, so I didn't/don't have any qualms with not having kept those routes exactly as they currently are... At the same time though, *something* should've been kept to running b/w Babylon & Whitman Mall, so I'm aiight with the impending S3....

While having the S58 in Brentwood & that general part of the county opens up options to getting to the more eastern part of the county, I still see more patrons in the western part of the county benefitting more from having S5's run to Smith Haven (even with the existence of the S4), over getting to points b/w Smith Haven & Coram Plaza (let alone east of Coram Plaza).... As far as Udall rd. goes, I don't feel *as* strongly about it as you do, but FWIW, at best, I would branch the S5 (and have it run to Tanger, if it's not already proposed to do so) south of Deer Park Tanger to have hourly service operating via Deer Park av & via Udall rd...

[B35 via Church]

On 12/25/2022 at 2:07 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

The S58 along NY-25 in Riverhead is to partially replace the 8A in that area....

...and cut down on runtime, for having it run b/w Smith Haven & Brentwood.

On 12/25/2022 at 2:07 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

For the western part of Jericho Turnpike, I'd try to figure out how to coordinate it with the n79. (My first instinct is to run it down Jackson Avenue in Syosset, but I think ultimately that would be better served by a Hicksville- Oyster Bay route). So in other words, a straight extension of the n79 (and splitting the funding accordingly) would likely be the best way to go about doing so.

I was going to mention in the post above that the n79's routing b/w Hicksville & Whitman Mall would actually get you between the 2 points quicker than taking 106 to 25, but I didn't want to make it seem like I was suggesting extending the n79 to Smith Haven, or really, anything supporting anything running b/w Hicksville & Smith Haven.... The void in service up there around Jericho & Syosset should be taken care of by NICE bus anyway....

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

On 1/1/2023 at 7:04 PM, B35 via Church said:

While I do like the idea of it running b/w Ronkonkoma & Pt. Jeff, I do think the S51 as proposed (as in, b/w Patchogue & Pt. Jeff) will catch on, because it eliminates an xfer at Ronkonkoma for points north, for people coming off buses at Patchogue.... The people coming from points north of Ronkonkoma are largely doing so to catch the main line (which is why the S57/S59 dies at LIRR Ronkonkoma itself)... Those people rarely if ever xfer to 7a's...

The people coming from points south of Ronkonkoma on the 7a almost always xfer to the S57 or the S59 for points north.... Nobody really wants to xfer at Ronkonkoma b/w buses (especially when you have S57/S59 having driver changes there, and/or idling there for minutes on end before finally pulling off)..... The problem with the 7a is that it's erratic & sluggish on top of if; much of nobody uses it in North Patchogue, even less so than of people using the S57 or S59 b/w Sayville & Ronkonkoma....

All that said, considering the rest of the impending network, I still don't like the idea of the S51 virtually being a point-to-point shuttle b/w Patchogue & Ronkonkoma (Patchogue-Holbrook rd. is basically a highway; even the 7a diverts to serve Main st in Holbrook before turning off at Union av to get to LIRR Ronkonkoma)... It's beyond retarded to have the S6 basically be the only route in that Central Islip - LIRR Main Line - Patchogue - LIRR Montauk Line pocket/region of the county.... To fill that void b/w Sayville & Ronkonkoma, I would try my hand at a circulator, only terminating at Ronkonkoma - especially if the terminal situation in Sayville is such this problem (from what I've been hearing)...

The only reason they probably routed the S51 like that because it having it run along Main Street would add just enough time to where the layover situation may not be ideal. Personally I'm not a fan that there's also nothing in that part of residential Holbrook either. I get consolidating service to one bus route, but the way they did it is dumb. However that's what happens when you're constrained by costs and try to do things as cost-neutral as possible. 

The other thing I did consider was having a mix of the S57 and S59 running between Ronkonkoma and Sayville on hourly headways, how exactly I'm not 100% sure. How would a circulator-type of service work (general areas served)? I agree with the general notion that there should be some north-south service in that area.

On 1/1/2023 at 7:04 PM, B35 via Church said:

Yeah, I don't think it should be a 30 min route either.... I'd also say they're complicating matters with this 52a/52b bit - Every 30 mins. b/w Central Islip & SCCC Selden, but hourly service if you want faster service to (the glorified xfer point that is) Coram Plz. & hourly service if you want service to Brookhaven Town Hall? I personally wouldn't bother with Mooney Pond (impending 52a/current 6a).... I'd simply have the S52 be a route running b/w Central Islip & Coram Plz. via Gordon Hgts... One thing I never cared for with the S60 is that it terminates in Gordon Hgts; nothing should be terminating there AFAIC....

So yeah, (I'd) have the S52, as 1 route, from Central Islip, running hourly, going on to do [the 52b b/w SCCC Selden & Gordon Hgts.] & via [the 52a b/w Gordon Hgts & Coram Plz.].... Only modification I'd do is to have the route continue along Horseblock to N. Ocean, for access to that Expressway Plaza shopping ctr. that's being/been revamped, before diverting to serve the Brookhaven Town Center....

It won't even be every 30 minutes to SCCC because the S52B wouldn't serve it, from the looks of those maps (it shows the Town Hall deviation so I would assume it would also show the SCCC deviation if they planned to so). 

I get the rationale behind running it via Gordon Heights, however i'm not sure about completely taking the route off Mooney Pond Road (since it isn't that close to Middle Country Road) and also have it run via Gordon Heights in that matter. The trip time between Coram and Gordon Heights (~15 minutes) is deceptively long, despite it looking like a relatively short distance. I suppose it would be a boost though from its current situation, where there's only direct access towards Coram and not points west.  Also no matter what serves Brookhaven Town Hall, it'll be quite a deviation from the major roads / bus lines in the area (no matter which one is chosen) just because of where it's situated. Ironic too given that's where a lot of public services are provided and handled, but that's a separate convo. 

The reason I considered having the S52 just run to/from Ronkonkoma LIRR was because cycle-wise, to get to Gordon Heights would take roughly 45-50 minutes (~30 on the current 6A route to Coram, and then 15 to Gordon Heights). so a round trip can be done in roughly 90-100 minutes, with a cycle time of 120 minutes (which is where the 2 buses figure come from). That would be consistent no matter what part of the day. Running the S52 on hourly headways to/from Central Islip would require roughly 3 buses (and as proposed would use 5 buses during the day on weekdays).

That's also part why I came up with that revamped version of the S71 and have that run to/from Central Islip instead. There's a few reasons why I came up with it too. Overall I think there's more demand from Farmingville and Holbrook (maybe from Mastic & Shirley) to Central Islip (and other areas by extension, particularly Brentwood) then there would be from Coram and Gordon Heights, so that would be a better use of resources IMO.

Other reasons included: 

• Restoring bus service to the Yaphank offices
• Serving that Walmart Supercenter off the LIE (funny thing, it's ironically the only Walmart not served by ANY public transit out in Suffolk, and maybe even LI as a whole)
• Serving parts of Shirley that lost bus service back in 2016 with the elimination of the 7D.
• Serving Brookhaven Town Hall, and directly connecting more of the Town of Brookhaven to it in the process

The route would also serve expressway plaza, so in essence the S71 would kinda be like what you are considering with the S52 between CI and Brookhaven Town Hall, except headed towards Medford, Yaphank, and Shirley. 

On 1/1/2023 at 7:04 PM, B35 via Church said:

I'll explain my attitude/indifference regarding the latter.... The thing with the S54 from Whitman is that there's a lot of quote-unquote distance riding going on with that route (from ppl coming off other routes), with a noticeable decline in patronage along Jericho Tpke itself over the years (not sure what the reason{s} for it is, but the phenomenon is quite apparent to me)... It's more or less straggler level along Jericho Tpke. these days, with the exception of ppl. (previously) xferring off other routes to the S54 at Commack Plaza... I say "previously" because I believe now they only have the H10 running inside there?... If that shopping plaza's construction is finished & they put the SCT buses (S54, 56, 58) back there, I wouldn't know - but hopefully they did (Where they had S56's terminating at on that end of the route, yikes)....

To the larger point though, the gripe with the current S58 from riders was always that it didn't go far enough west.... On top of that, the S54 has always been a delay prone route.... So while you have a valid point/concern, I'm not too too worried with that gap along Jericho Tpke b/w Commack Plaza & Old Willets Path, because now with the S6 actually running down to Central Islip (although I still see people xferring for S5's or S11's to Brentwood) instead of doing that bullshit it currently does b/w the county offices in Hauppauge & the southern tip of Islandia (LIRR Main line tracks), it makes the S54 way more attractive... That, and I don't notice much of anyone boarding or disembarking along Jericho Tpke b/w Downtown Smithtown & Commack Plaza.... For Smith Haven access from Jericho Tpke to the west, you'd have to xfer to the S6.... Either way, riders would/will have to xfer {(from S54's to S56's or S58's) or (from the impending S6 to the S5 or S58)}....

As for your "S55", while a noble gesture, I think that is an absolute waste of mileage to have buses running on 25 b/w Jericho (the town, hamlet, whatever it's technically considered) & Smith Haven.... Just the Nassau portion of the route (106 to 25 to the county line) alone would loom brutal, in terms of traffic....

All that said, seperate of anything involving Jericho Tpke, I don't agree with eliminating the S56 either - at least the portion b/w Kings Park & Smith Haven anyway.... Even if it's every other bus, I'd have the S11 at least running up to Siena Hospital...

The 'S56' would not be simply be blanketed on top of the existing proposed network, it would involve modifying some of the either proposed alignments too, so that it wouldn't amount to an insanely redundant service. For starters i wouldn't have the S5 running to Smith Haven at all, but the S5/S58 replacement wouldn't serve as much of NY-25. Plus in Huntington I would can the H40 as the route would essentially cover most of the route (and then anyone needing points north of Jericho can transfer to the S7 or H10). That's also why I floated the idea that a partnership between NICE, HART, and SCT to run the service collectively, so that SCT maintains the same amount of resources, and that none of the operators at HART would lose their jobs with such a change. 

The Nassau portion between Hicksville and the county line to provide more bus coverage within Nassau (and if NICE got in on such service, they would also be providing said service).  So you would have whoever's headed out to Huntington and points east from Hicksville, plus riders headed to/from Syosset as well. I didn't want to involve the n79 in any way, shape or form for that reason. Also I think the n79 (route-wise) should be left alone and that NICE needs to look at closing those service gaps. The other alternatives would be to have the S56 travel via Woodbury Road (similar to the old N94) to Jericho Turnpike, which would skip Syosset and avoid NY-25 until Woodbury. That would also cut down some travel time and also allow it to serve Siena Hospital. Either that or take Woodbury Road to South Oyster Bay Road to Jericho Turnpike.  

As far as the S11 goes, IINM once the S11 gets to Hauppauge (from Bay Shore), it'll turn into an S17 towards Islip (and the S17 from Islip turns into an S11 to Bay Shore). Are you saying that you would cut down the S17 to hourly during weekday daytimes / bi-hourly during all other hours? If so, I guess at least on weekdays that would be on-par with the existing 3C in terms of service levels, but on weekends that would make the service on the S17 leg rather unattractive. Personally I don't like what they did in that area to begin with (NY-111 in particular with no bus service, while Carleton Ave / 3C area receives 30 minute service on weekdays).

On 1/1/2023 at 7:04 PM, B35 via Church said:

Regarding the S2 though, I'd have left the current S40 as is; always hated that long-standing proposal around these parts (not just on this forum in the past) to have combined the S20 & the S40.... The remaining portion of the S2 west of Babylon can be combined with the impending S10 to form a convoluted loop b/w LIRR Amityville & LIRR Babylon for all I care... That's how much I'm against running S40's west of Babylon....

As for your proposals, with your "S19", I most certainly see the need/value in restoring that part of the old N72 - however, I'd run it past 110/Conklin (Airport Plz.) to LIRR Farmingale (or as close to it as is feasibly allowed).... Not sure what to say about your "S10", other than it's better than the impending S10.... It speaks more to (how I view) bus usage in that general area of county, than your proposal itself....

I get the reasoning for the S2 running between Amityville (or Sunrise Mall) and Patchogue, but yeah, the difference between ridership levels on the current S20 and S40 are like night and day. Even with the expansion of service to cover Montauk Highway, it doesn't look like it made much of a difference. Although n19 ridership on Montauk Highway (when it ran to Babylon) wasn't the highest, it wasn't the lowest either, and most riders took it to/from Nassau, not too much intra-Suffolk ridership from what I recall. However given how NICE destroyed the n19, plus the lack of service for quite some time in that area after it got cut from Babylon, whatever riders used the n19 bus in that area likely gave up altogether (or are using the Babylon Branch), and did not switch over to the S20, although to be fair even though the combined headways decreased at Sunrise Mall and Babylon, on the individual segments (Oak Street) the headways are worse than they were before. Ninety minute headways on the S20 loops just aren't it.

In the past I was more supportive of such a proposal (S40 to Sunrise Mall) but now I'm more or less indifferent to it. Ultimately what I like is the overall better service provided on all segments of the route more than anything. If that's what it takes to get it to a reasonable headway, then I'm all for it, although I would still say that the service should be branched between via Oak Street and via Montauk Highway at the very least on weekdays. Weekends it's a different story and I'm conflicted, since the headways are hourly. Unless it would be an improvement over existing service, I wouldn't want to subject riders to 120 minute headways, but I also think Lindenhurst and that Oak Street segment should have some weekend service. 

As far as the S19 and sending it over to Farmingdale LIRR, there is some evidence that may indicate it is still feasible to run to/from Farmingdale LIRR with one bus. I checked out this n72 timetable to see roughly how much time was given, and from Conklin & Main Street to Babylon in like 23-24 minutes during peak hours (similar distance to/from Farmingdale LIRR). So if those runtimes still hold today and traffic conditions are about the same, it may be possible. However, it has since been a decade so maybe not, IDK. I wouldn't be opposed to sending it further into Farmingdale though. 

On 1/1/2023 at 7:04 PM, B35 via Church said:

The more I look at the system map, the more I'm growing annoyed with what they did in Riverhead (although it's absolutely better than what they proposed in the original draft for the area)....

• S58's bypassing Tanger to cut down on runtime, because they got buses running b/w Smith Haven & Brentwood
• S62's, while at least they reconsidered the moronic decision of eliminating it outright, having it go on to serving more of commercial Riverhead, to eventually have it swing down to the RR station (the latter is what I have a problem with)... Maybe things have changed for the better (in terms of demand), but I never really cared for anything terminating at LIRR Riverhead & don't really see an issue with buses ending at the county offices, but it is what it is...
• Everything that the S80 embodies (it's absolutely a Wesley Village shuttle & it's a  slap in the face to every other private enclave in the county that'll no longer have bus service)....
• The aforementioned/apparent S92 cuts.... Anything to not split the route & provide commensurate service on each "fork"
• Hell, although the S66 gets 30 min. service throughout the day, I'm even now starting to question running S66's up to the Peconic Bay Medical Center

Regarding the S77, regarding my previous commentary for the draft proposal, I made up my mind.... The whole thing needs to be thrown in the garbage; gotta be shittin me with a separate variant for Yaphank County Offices, having originally left Bellport Village with nothing.... I thought it was a waste to have S68's running up there....Way I see it, if they can have S40's running over the S20 to Amityville (which I absolutely despise), they can have S66's running/diverting up to serve N. Bellport up to the outlet center..... To sum it up, have some S66's bypass N. Bellport via Bellport Village/S. Country rd & some S66's directly serve N. Bellport via the S68/7b.... I'd have that impending S53 (which I see carrying relatively light anyway) run over from LIRR Patchogue to Brookhaven Hospital & the rest of the medical center/park over there around Gazzola dr..... No different than they have the impending S62 doing up at Belle Mead rd. in E. Setauket...

Yeah, the S80 I would totally get rid of, the other routes (in particular the S62, because of how its routed) can cover most segments. I totally support them moving the transfer point / terminal into Downtown Riverhead, as the current setup is brutal if your bus is late. I've had that happen to me before, where I've been on a late bus and it just barely missed the connecting bus I was looking for. Not the best place to be waiting around for multiple reasons, the biggest one being that there's much of nothing around. Now IDK if that's the same reason they moved the terminal. Given that they extended the S66 all the way up to Peconic Bay, it leads me to believe that it was more to trim the runtime on the S58 & S62 and maintain it within a reasonable time limit with whatever number of buses they plan on running the route with. 

As far as the S66 is concerned, they seriously need to move the bus off of Montauk Highway. While the extension to Peconic Bay Medical Center in Riverhead is understandable and cool I suppose, they're basically stunting ridership by taking the straightest (cheapest) way between Patchogue and Shirley (via Montauk Highway).  Most of that area is wooded, contain auto shops, and is adjacent to the Montauk Branch (which cuts off points south). I would also branch the S66 like you mentioned, what I would have the northern branch operate via LI Community Hospital and Conifer Village, then operate via Martha Ave, Americus Ave, Brookhaven Ave, and Station Road in North Bellport to/from Montauk Highway (and the southern branch would do what you effectively described). Weekdays I would the northern branch operate all the way to Riverhead, and on weekends between Patchogue and Shirley. That way I guess you can get rid of the S77/77Y and use those resources elsewhere (of which I have a few considerations), or restructure it to serve some of the local streets the existing 7B serves if warranted

Upon further examination it doesn't look like there are many places where you can safely put stops on Sills Road. The few places where you can put a bus stop, it's a bit of a walk to the residential streets), which makes that part virtually useless. I was under the impression that you were more easily able to cross Sills Road, but the non-signalized intersections are just not ideal with the merging/turning lanes and vehicles going at over 50 mph on that stretch. Sheesh 

On 1/1/2023 at 7:04 PM, B35 via Church said:

As long as there's service along Deer Park rd. up to Nicolls (revised S5), I couldn't care less what they got the S3 doing south of Nicolls.... You do have a valid point with the S3 & S10 running in close proximity of each other though (especially considering what's being done countywide with far greater coverage gaps)... I believe they brought back this rendition of an S3 for no other reason than to supply service to Five Towns College... AFAIC, that's neither here nor there, being that the draft network had nothing running b/w [Babylon and/or Deer Park/Wyandanch] & [Whitman Mall].... The S23 these days is basically an S29 supplement b/w Babylon (or Deer Park & Wyandanch) & Whitman Mall & the S29 b/w Whitman Mall & Deer Park (not inclusive) carries a shit ton of air, so I didn't/don't have any qualms with not having kept those routes exactly as they currently are... At the same time though, *something* should've been kept to running b/w Babylon & Whitman Mall, so I'm aiight with the impending S3....

While having the S58 in Brentwood & that general part of the county opens up options to getting to the more eastern part of the county, I still see more patrons in the western part of the county benefitting more from having S5's run to Smith Haven (even with the existence of the S4), over getting to points b/w Smith Haven & Coram Plaza (let alone east of Coram Plaza).... As far as Udall rd. goes, I don't feel *as* strongly about it as you do, but FWIW, at best, I would branch the S5 (and have it run to Tanger, if it's not already proposed to do so) south of Deer Park Tanger to have hourly service operating via Deer Park av & via Udall rd...

The S3 north of Nicolls Road I'm perfectly fine with, south of it I just think could have been handled better. 

As far as what you're suggesting, that's close to what I had in mind, with the S5 would be hourly between Babylon and Brentwood (via Deer Park Ave, Grand Blvd, Pilgram State, and the outskirts of SCCC Brentwood. The truncation of the S5 to Brentwood, plus reduction to hourly service and straightening of the S3 down Deer Park Avenue would free up resources to operate the S27 (Babylon to Deer Park Tanger Outlets) and a revamped S25 (Babylon - Wyandanch via Little East Neck Road, Westchester Ave, Mount Ave & Straight Path) on a full time basis, both hourly. 

I don't know, personally I'm not too onboard with the idea of sending the S5 to Smith Haven, maybe because the S4 is already there serving a similar purpose, and the S5 is just more indirect than the S4 between Deer Park and Smith Haven Mall. Especially since the S4 is one of those frequent routes (the proposed S5 is one too, but still), I just think that most would connect to the S4 for the most part if they cannot take the S5. 

On 12/29/2022 at 12:29 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

So I made a spreadsheet with some rough calculations of how many buses each route requires at different times of day (feel free to correct me if I missed anything...I know for the current one I didn't include the S69, since it doesn't run rush hours or middays, and basically just uses the last evening bus off the S60).

Something about the way the cycle time of the S77 makes me suspect a lot of runs will involve a meal break either before, after, or during the S77 trip. (In other words, do a round-trip on a long route like the S2, S6, S66, or S51/S53/S55 combo, and then do a round-trip on the S77, take a lunch break, and then do another round-trip on a long route...probably makes more sense to have the layover on the Patchogue side rather than the Bellport side). And then during rush hour, they might time it so that there's no meal breaks during the few hours the S77Y runs (So it might be two buses for the S77, or three buses for the S77/S77Y). 

At a glance, it looks like there's definitely fewer physical buses being used for the peak service, but the savings are being reinvested into the evening and Sunday service. 

Given the change to the S52 in this updated proposal, it actually saves one bus during daytime hours, which is probably where the resources for the S77Y came. Had they kept their proposed S52 as it originally was, it would have had a cycle time of 180 minutes (~30 from CI to Ronkonkoma, 30 from Ronkonkoma to Coram, and 15 to/from Gordon Heights, plus 15 of recovery time at each end), requiring 6 buses. 

If the cycle time on the S77 is that razor thin though with one bus, then I would probably just gut it and incorporate it with the S66 (see above). 

[checkmatechamp13]

@BM5 via Woodhaven Good point. I was going off the existing 7B schedule, and offhand figured that if it takes 15 minutes to get from Patchogue to Brookhaven Hospital, even with the straighter route through the northern part of North Bellport (which unfortunately also bypasses most of the residential areas currently served by the 7B), I didn't think it could be done with one bus, but I suppose it's possible. (The driving route shows 20 minutes for the S77, and 17 minutes for the S77Y, but with stops and traffic, it's definitely cutting it close)

The thing I don't quite get is how the current S66 trips through North Bellport are scheduled for more runtime than the ones via South Country Road. I know North Bellport is a lower-income area than Bellport proper, but like you said, it's a lot of auto body shops, and most North Bellport residents probably take the S68 since it's somewhat more frequent/consistent than the S66 and better penetrates the residential areas. 

The thing that makes it a bit tricky is that while North Bellport has a lot of ridership potential (given its relatively low density compared to say, Brentwood, Central Islip, Patchogue, etc), the S66 does see a lot of longer-distance ridership to Mastic-Shirley and Riverhead. So the question becomes whether it's worth taking the more direct route, or the more residential route.

I'd probably say the best way of going about it would be to have the S77 run a loop similar to the S52A/S52B. (So buses would basically take the current 7B Bellport route, then run straight down Old Country Road back to Patchogue). If you wanted to be cheap, you could have it as a one-way (hourly) loop, but realistically, I think the ridership is there for a two way loop (to put it into perspective, the 7B is on-par with the 1A and S20 in terms of riders per hour, and more efficient than the 6A and 7A, both of which are getting 30 minute headways for part or all of their route). 

Either that, or run the microtransit route for North Bellport (but in practice, buses would probably end up running in a similar loop anyway). For the S66, you could run the buses via the slight detour the S68 makes (Patchogue Avenue & Brookhaven Avenue).

By the way, keep in mind that for Conifer Village, buses have to go all the way in and back out (Brookwood Lane becomes a narrow pedestrian path at the end). So the best that can realistically be done (in the case of your proposed North Bellport S66 branch) would be to have a stop at Martha & Dunton and hope that they open the gate to that pedestrian path. 

For Sills Road, yeah that's pretty much a full-blown highway (as is Woodside Avenue). That S77 will pretty much run nonstop from the hospital to the Savers/Stop & Shop shopping center, to the Bellport Outlets (at the expense of any riders in any residential areas north of Sunrise Highway). 

And yes, I definitely agree with your Deer Park/Wyandanch/Smithtown restructuring of the S5. There's no need for two routes from Deer Park to Smith Haven (and three routes from Brentwood to Smith Haven). Wyandanch loses its direct connection to Walt Whitman, but the S12 (or for that matter, the S4 for those south of the tracks) to the S1 will be sufficient (the other question of course, is whether those riders are heading to the mall itself, or using it as a transfer point). 

[The TransitMan]

Anyone have a copy of the redesign? All the links have been discontinued.

[Mpn4179]

On 5/22/2023 at 9:13 AM, The TransitMan said:

Anyone have a copy of the redesign? All the links have been discontinued.

The links to the redesign are back on Suffolk County Transit's website.

www.sct-bus.org

[Mpn4179]

Per the Suffolk County Transit's website:

Coming Soon: The New Suffolk County Transit System

The Suffolk County Transit System is getting a new look! Following a multi-year redesign of the Suffolk County Transit System's bus network, known as Reimagine Transit, a new bus system that is expected to be more reliable and efficient is coming to Suffolk County in the Fall of 2023. The new network of the Suffolk County Transit system will feature longer hours, full Sunday service, timed connections, increased frequency and improved routes to get to where you need to go faster.

For more information, go to Suffolk County Transit's website: www.sct-bus.org

[checkmatechamp13]

56 minutes ago, Mpn4179 said:

The links to the redesign are back on Suffolk County Transit's website.

www.sct-bus.org

If you click the Reimagine Transit link, it still seems to be broken, but that's good news that they are planning on posting the final plan soon.

[The TransitMan]

1 hour ago, Mpn4179 said:

Per the Suffolk County Transit's website:

Coming Soon: The New Suffolk County Transit System

The Suffolk County Transit System is getting a new look! Following a multi-year redesign of the Suffolk County Transit System's bus network, known as Reimagine Transit, a new bus system that is expected to be more reliable and efficient is coming to Suffolk County in the Fall of 2023. The new network of the Suffolk County Transit system will feature longer hours, full Sunday service, timed connections, increased frequency and improved routes to get to where you need to go faster.

For more information, go to Suffolk County Transit's website: www.sct-bus.org

...and they switched the S58 with the S62 in Riverhead. It appears the S58 will use and stay on NYS 25 as oppose to the previous plan with the S58 traveling along County Road 58 in Riverhead and then down County Road 43.

Meanwhile that S80....UGH....yeah I'm not feeling that disrespect in Calverton. Oh and the "On-Demand" in The Hamptons. The "Artist formerly known as the 10A" pears to be working. However, I'm curious to see how that "On-Demand" will work in Montauk during the summer months.

[checkmatechamp13]

Actually, I stand corrected, the final plan is available here: https://connectli.org/ReimagineTransit.html (they still have the Powerpoint presentation with the confusion with the S62 regarding Fresh Pond Avenue service). 

This is pretty much the same as the last draft schedule, but the big question is, when will they release the precise schedules? (I want to see if they made any sort of attempt at coordinating with the LIRR)

Edited June 24, 2023 by checkmatechamp13

[The TransitMan]

I wonder...

 

Now that the "Feeder" routes are somewhat gone. Will the NEW routes have "S92" OR just simply "92"? It would be funny to see the S2, S4, S5, etc. Also, hopefully the destination signs on the Xcelsiors will be programmed to look better. I'm not expecting MTA style destination signs BUT at least spell out "NRTHPRT"

[jaf0519]

3 hours ago, The TransitMan said:

I wonder...

 

Now that the "Feeder" routes are somewhat gone. Will the NEW routes have "S92" OR just simply "92"? It would be funny to see the S2, S4, S5, etc. Also, hopefully the destination signs on the Xcelsiors will be programmed to look better. I'm not expecting MTA style destination signs BUT at least spell out "NRTHPRT"

I am going to guess that there will be no “S” since if I remember correctly, they refer to the lines as Route #, not route S# in the final draft presentation. And as someone who just recently started a daily commute from Fresh Meadows to Holtsville (torture, I know), I cannot wait to see the schedules. The fact that I get out of work at 4:30 and the earliest train from Ronkonkoma to Jamaica that I can catch is the 5:55 because of the 7A only running every 70 minutes in the afternoon is infuriating. 30 minute service on route 51 can’t come soon enough. 

[checkmatechamp13]

6 hours ago, The TransitMan said:

I wonder...

Now that the "Feeder" routes are somewhat gone. Will the NEW routes have "S92" OR just simply "92"? It would be funny to see the S2, S4, S5, etc. Also, hopefully the destination signs on the Xcelsiors will be programmed to look better. I'm not expecting MTA style destination signs BUT at least spell out "NRTHPRT"

I think @jaf0519 is correct. I believe they will also attempt to put some of the major corridors on the destination sign (e.g. "via Montauk Highway" for the 2 or "via Middle Country Road" for the 58) 

2 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

I am going to guess that there will be no “S” since if I remember correctly, they refer to the lines as Route #, not route S# in the final draft presentation. And as someone who just recently started a daily commute from Fresh Meadows to Holtsville (torture, I know), I cannot wait to see the schedules. The fact that I get out of work at 4:30 and the earliest train from Ronkonkoma to Jamaica that I can catch is the 5:55 because of the 7A only running every 70 minutes in the afternoon is infuriating. 30 minute service on route 51 can’t come soon enough. 

By any chance, would it work to take the 7A to Patchogue for the Montauk Branch? (You'd get to Jamaica about 9 minutes earlier compared to the Ronkonkoma Branch)

[The TransitMan]

On 7/4/2023 at 7:44 PM, jaf0519 said:

I am going to guess that there will be no “S” since if I remember correctly, they refer to the lines as Route #, not route S# in the final draft presentation. And as someone who just recently started a daily commute from Fresh Meadows to Holtsville (torture, I know), I cannot wait to see the schedules. The fact that I get out of work at 4:30 and the earliest train from Ronkonkoma to Jamaica that I can catch is the 5:55 because of the 7A only running every 70 minutes in the afternoon is infuriating. 30 minute service on route 51 can’t come soon enough. 

Yeah I kind of figured. It would be good to expand those destination signs.

Ouch! How early do you get to Ronkonkoma? I know the S63 has one trip to Patchogue via Holtsville, which leaves around 6:55? 

On 7/4/2023 at 10:25 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think @jaf0519 is correct. I believe they will also attempt to put some of the major corridors on the destination sign (e.g. "via Montauk Highway" for the 2 or "via Middle Country Road" for the 58) 

By any chance, would it work to take the 7A to Patchogue for the Montauk Branch? (You'd get to Jamaica about 9 minutes earlier compared to the Ronkonkoma Branch)

Yes. Let's see if they follow through because they went through he#/ adding "S40 via Middle Rd"

[danielhg121]

The implementation date for the new SCT bus network is scheduled for October 1st. Oddly enough, I found out through NICEBus. lol