Suffolk County Draft Plan Released

[Lex]

11 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Even with all the cuts to the system, SCT's bus system is still too large to organically pull off timed connections at multiple/major xfer points in the network.... While well-intentioned, it's just not realistic.... Weird feeling, but in regards to this particular facet of the new network, I'm sitting back reading this sneering & chortling, while concurrently irritated.....

Maybe this could've been mitigated if the routes were generally scheduled to be twice as frequent as they are, but they insisted on capping frequencies at every 30 minutes with these (generally) long routes.

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Maybe this could've been mitigated if the routes were generally scheduled to be twice as frequent as they are, but they insisted on capping frequencies at every 30 minutes with these (generally) long routes.

You probably wouldn't need to resort to such a method (holding buses for timed connections) altogether if the routes were twice as frequent.....

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church The first time was the opposite problem...the buses weren't waiting at all...there is a ton of padding in the schedule in the vicinity of the transfer points, so most buses treated that as a normal stop (so for example, that S92 heading towards Greenport ended up being a good 15 minutes early for the whole rest of the route once he passed Riverhead)

The problem is the scheduled runtime is too much...I know one thing that they mentioned is that the old system was unreliable and they needed to add some runtime to the routes to keep them on schedule, but they went overkill on it and now you have the problem of buses leaving early. 

With the way they had originally advertised the pulse system, they said buses would be waiting 3-5 minutes which I found to be reasonable...I asked them if this applied at terminals and they never got back to me...come to find out they're essentially treating all of these intermediate stops as terminals and giving them a good 10 minutes (not 3-5 as originally promised) of padding at each one...the S4 runs every 30 minutes and it's getting a good 20 minutes of padding at Brentwood/Central Islip....

I'd say the pulse system can work at Patchogue, Amityville, Riverhead (I think the S92 should be split anyway), and the setup they have at Bay Shore (the S7/11/12 time with each other but not with the S2). I believe Farmingdale State College has the S12 arriving at :26 and leaving at :41 while the S1 passes at :30, so I'd include that as an example of a successful pulse point even though it's not official. 

For Brentwood, I think the S7 & S11 should stay linked up (if they leave Bay Shore around the same time, they should get to Brentwood around the same time). The S58 I'd primarily try to schedule based on the Riverhead timepoint, but I think it could be reasonably scheduled to meet the S7/11 at Brentwood. The S5 as mentioned, I'd restructure the route entirely to end at Central Islip...it can be timed with the S17/52 since those end there. For the S4, I'd see if it can fit into those pulse points, but if not, then Brentwood & Central Islip would become like Bay Shore where some routes just don't fit into the pulse. 

To put things into perspective, the Trip Planner actually says the quickest way from Amityville to Smith Haven is to take the S4 to Wyandanch, LIRR to Central Islip, and then the S4 again to Smith Haven (so the LIRR will save you a full 30 minute interval on the S4). It's all due to that 15-20 minutes of padding they put in at Brentwood/Central Islip. 

I mean there was something to be said for the old system of "58 to the 66, I have 2 people needing to transfer" setup. (For what it's worth I did hear that type of language on the first trip...I don't believe I heard it on the second trip). If they can't make the connection in the 3-5 minute window, then it should be on a case-by-case basis that they hold (and in some cases, there might be some other stop the connection can be made at...for example, the S4 and S6 share the same route on Suffolk Avenue from Carleton Avenue/Wheeler Road to NY-454...if somebody is trying to get from the westbound S6 to the eastbound S4, they don't need to go all the way to the LIRR station). Or there might be some other route that they can take (e.g. If someone going from Brentwood to Patchogue misses the connection to the S6 at Central Islip, they can go to Smith Haven for the S51)

[B35 via Church]

14 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church The first time was the opposite problem...the buses weren't waiting at all...there is a ton of padding in the schedule in the vicinity of the transfer points, so most buses treated that as a normal stop (so for example, that S92 heading towards Greenport ended up being a good 15 minutes early for the whole rest of the route once he passed Riverhead)

The problem is the scheduled runtime is too much...I know one thing that they mentioned is that the old system was unreliable and they needed to add some runtime to the routes to keep them on schedule, but they went overkill on it and now you have the problem of buses leaving early. 

With the way they had originally advertised the pulse system, they said buses would be waiting 3-5 minutes which I found to be reasonable...I asked them if this applied at terminals and they never got back to me...come to find out they're essentially treating all of these intermediate stops as terminals and giving them a good 10 minutes (not 3-5 as originally promised) of padding at each one...the S4 runs every 30 minutes and it's getting a good 20 minutes of padding at Brentwood/Central Islip....

The scheduled runtime is too much, because they're trying to have dissimilar routes (in terms of route length/mileage and/or in terms of runtime) all connect to each other at these timed connection points..... The way I see it, it's clear that it's all guesswork & it's going to take trial & error to get as close to having the routes at these timed connection points connect to each other in a reasonable timeframe.... To come out of the gate promising 3-5 min. waits when (at least in these two different fantrip instances of yours) the worst possible scenarios on both sides of the spectrum occurred, is a problem.... Let's see how serious (and with what amount of diligence) they'll take this matter....

Your inquiry (to them) is asking too much of them, when they apparently can't get these mid-route pulse points to reasonably pan out..... I mean, godspeed to this new network, but I'm going to remain being of the belief that any attempt to have 1] mid-route pulse points (plural), period, and 2] in a network that clearly isn't pulse point centric is infeasible, unworkable, and dare I say it - irrational...

14 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I'd say the pulse system can work at Patchogue, Amityville, Riverhead (I think the S92 should be split anyway), and the setup they have at Bay Shore (the S7/11/12 time with each other but not with the S2). I believe Farmingdale State College has the S12 arriving at :26 and leaving at :41 while the S1 passes at :30, so I'd include that as an example of a successful pulse point even though it's not official. 

For Brentwood, I think the S7 & S11 should stay linked up (if they leave Bay Shore around the same time, they should get to Brentwood around the same time). The S58 I'd primarily try to schedule based on the Riverhead timepoint, but I think it could be reasonably scheduled to meet the S7/11 at Brentwood. The S5 as mentioned, I'd restructure the route entirely to end at Central Islip...it can be timed with the S17/52 since those end there. For the S4, I'd see if it can fit into those pulse points, but if not, then Brentwood & Central Islip would become like Bay Shore where some routes just don't fit into the pulse. 

To put things into perspective, the Trip Planner actually says the quickest way from Amityville to Smith Haven is to take the S4 to Wyandanch, LIRR to Central Islip, and then the S4 again to Smith Haven (so the LIRR will save you a full 30 minute interval on the S4). It's all due to that 15-20 minutes of padding they put in at Brentwood/Central Islip. 

I mean there was something to be said for the old system of "58 to the 66, I have 2 people needing to transfer" setup. (For what it's worth I did hear that type of language on the first trip...I don't believe I heard it on the second trip). If they can't make the connection in the 3-5 minute window, then it should be on a case-by-case basis that they hold (and in some cases, there might be some other stop the connection can be made at...for example, the S4 and S6 share the same route on Suffolk Avenue from Carleton Avenue/Wheeler Road to NY-454...if somebody is trying to get from the westbound S6 to the eastbound S4, they don't need to go all the way to the LIRR station). Or there might be some other route that they can take (e.g. If someone going from Brentwood to Patchogue misses the connection to the S6 at Central Islip, they can go to Smith Haven for the S51)

AFAIC, Amityville, Central Islip, Riverhead, and Smith Haven (which is the absolute dumbest one to me in this network) have no business being pulse points - and this is me being objective, because I'm clearly not a fan of multiple pulse points in one network.... You can have routes connecting to each other at terminals without this need to have them all depart at/around the same time.... Putting that another way, a major xfer point doesn't necessarily have to be a pulse point - Which is one reason why I strongly believe they've incorporated pulse points into this network for the wrong reasons.... In any case though, I *suppose* I'm alright with Brentwood (although IDK what side of the tracks the connection/pulse point is on... which is another thing - the Man line is at grade, which adds yet another variable to all of this), Patchogue, and Bay Shore.....

Multiple pulse points to me, suggest multiple sub-networks.... Not that it has to be, but that isn't what this new network is -  it's one network with multiple pulse points....

Yeah, when b/o's would have communications over the radio with the dispatcher for the purpose of having buses hold for connections, I didn't mind that all that much because there was never a time when/where a bus I was on, was sitting idle for too too many minutes on end... 5-6 or so may have been the longest.... Never was 10 or more, because I most certainly would've remembered that - and I've fanned the old system for about 20 years, more or less....

Notice that nothing I'm saying thus far has to do with the quality of any of the routes.... Although I'm obviously not all that thrilled about the coverage losses, I have more of a gripe with how this network is structured, over the individual routes themselves....

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church For reference, here's the transfer point at Brentwood (basically, the routes go in order, with the 4 being all the way back by Brentwood Road, and the 58 being all the way at the front). They're not using the old transfer points south of the LIRR

Central Islip is similar (and similar in the sense that the lower-numbered routes are towards the back and the higher-numbered routes are towards the front). 

As you can see by their choice of transfer point location, those are essentially meant to be mid-route terminals. 

 

[Mtatransit]

Finally rode the new SCT today… man things didn’t go out as planned at all

Tried to take the 4 from Amityville to Smith Haven. The bus left on time at 3:30pm but we got to Wyandanch RR 12 min ahead of schedule. The driver ended up sitting there for 42 min!! for a driver swap. Seems like the 4pm out of amityville either have no drivers or is very late so EBT combined the two together. Now we missed both the 4:30 and the 5:00pm timed connection points. Add on to the Black Friday traffic we were up to 40 min late at one point. The bus got to Smith Haven only 25 min late though. In this case it looks like the padding helped out

Tried to take the 6:48pm 51 bus to catch the 2 at Patchogue but that bus either came too late (>30 min) or left over 15 min early because I never seen it. End up taking the 58 to the 5 at Brentwood, mostly because the 5 was nowhere to be found when the 58 came. The 58 arrived smith Haven mall 20 min early. 

The 5 eventually got to Brentwood and we sat there for 12 minutes which is fine by me. We left on time and by the time we got to Deer Park Ave the bus was 10 min early. And it stayed early until Babylon.

They really need to tightened the schedule especially between segments that are not timed connection points. No reason the bus should be 10 -15 min early between Deer Park - Babylon and Amityville - Wyandanch .I am fine with the bus sitting longer at pulse points honestly, but just not more than once. (Looking at you 4). They do have a new interesting set up at Brentwood and CI. What they need to do is have an arrive time and a depart time at those pulse points in timetable
 

Smith Haven Mall is a joke. If you didn’t tell me I would’ve never knew that was a timed connection point. Buses were either late or no show or super early.

SCT still need to work on its operations, because buses are either running super early not showing up or super late. It is really unbelievable how bad the operation was today. Unlike many systems I ridden, even though they call it timed connection, I never got the sense of safety that I will actually make the connection! 
 

The routes are good. There is coverage loss but the routes are now much straighter and more direct. I would say they are better than the older routes. The timed connection works great on paper. Finally SCT feels like a network of routes. But there is still a lot they need to improve. I will try to make it out there to ride more route to see if today was just especially bad

[Mtatransit]

9 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The scheduled runtime is too much, because they're trying to have dissimilar routes (in terms of route length/mileage and/or in terms of runtime) all connect to each other at these timed connection points..... The way I see it, it's clear that it's all guesswork & it's going to take trial & error to get as close to having the routes at these timed connection points connect to each other in a reasonable timeframe.... To come out of the gate promising 3-5 min. waits when (at least in these two different fantrip instances of yours) the worst possible scenarios on both sides of the spectrum occurred, is a problem.... Let's see how serious (and with what amount of diligence) they'll take this matter....

Your inquiry (to them) is asking too much of them, when they apparently can't get these mid-route pulse points to reasonably pan out..... I mean, godspeed to this new network, but I'm going to remain being of the belief that any attempt to have 1] mid-route pulse points (plural), period, and 2] in a network that clearly isn't pulse point centric is infeasible, unworkable, and dare I say it - irrational...

AFAIC, Amityville, Central Islip, Riverhead, and Smith Haven (which is the absolute dumbest one to me in this network) have no business being pulse points - and this is me being objective, because I'm clearly not a fan of multiple pulse points in one network.... You can have routes connecting to each other at terminals without this need to have them all depart at/around the same time.... Putting that another way, a major xfer point doesn't necessarily have to be a pulse point - Which is one reason why I strongly believe they've incorporated pulse points into this network for the wrong reasons.... In any case though, I *suppose* I'm alright with Brentwood (although IDK what side of the tracks the connection/pulse point is on... which is another thing - the Man line is at grade, which adds yet another variable to all of this), Patchogue, and Bay Shore.....

Multiple pulse points to me, suggest multiple sub-networks.... Not that it has to be, but that isn't what this new network is -  it's one network with multiple pulse points....

Yeah, when b/o's would have communications over the radio with the dispatcher for the purpose of having buses hold for connections, I didn't mind that all that much because there was never a time when/where a bus I was on, was sitting idle for too too many minutes on end... 5-6 or so may have been the longest.... Never was 10 or more, because I most certainly would've remembered that - and I've fanned the old system for about 20 years, more or less....

Notice that nothing I'm saying thus far has to do with the quality of any of the routes.... Although I'm obviously not all that thrilled about the coverage losses, I have more of a gripe with how this network is structured, over the individual routes themselves....

I can understand Amityville and Riverhead as those are mostly terminating routes 

But Smith Haven just doesn’t work… not only is the bus loading area utter confusion, (what’s with the county not installing signs anyways) but you also can’t time the routes entering Smith Haven properly. There is just too many through routes

CI and Brentwood I am conflicted. I do believe we should have atleast one pulse point here to provide connections between different directions, but having pulse points at both is too much

The 4 should either fit into Brentwood or Central Islip. It shouldn’t need to make both

Edited November 25, 2023 by Mtatransit

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

16 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

AFAIC, Amityville, Central Islip, Riverhead, and Smith Haven (which is the absolute dumbest one to me in this network) have no business being pulse points - and this is me being objective, because I'm clearly not a fan of multiple pulse points in one network.... You can have routes connecting to each other at terminals without this need to have them all depart at/around the same time.... Putting that another way, a major xfer point doesn't necessarily have to be a pulse point - Which is one reason why I strongly believe they've incorporated pulse points into this network for the wrong reasons.... In any case though, I *suppose* I'm alright with Brentwood (although IDK what side of the tracks the connection/pulse point is on... which is another thing - the Man line is at grade, which adds yet another variable to all of this), Patchogue, and Bay Shore.....

Multiple pulse points to me, suggest multiple sub-networks.... Not that it has to be, but that isn't what this new network is -  it's one network with multiple pulse points....

Yeah, when b/o's would have communications over the radio with the dispatcher for the purpose of having buses hold for connections, I didn't mind that all that much because there was never a time when/where a bus I was on, was sitting idle for too too many minutes on end... 5-6 or so may have been the longest.... Never was 10 or more, because I most certainly would've remembered that - and I've fanned the old system for about 20 years, more or less....

Notice that nothing I'm saying thus far has to do with the quality of any of the routes.... Although I'm obviously not all that thrilled about the coverage losses, I have more of a gripe with how this network is structured, over the individual routes themselves....

 

6 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I can understand Amityville and Riverhead as those are mostly terminating routes 

But Smith Haven just doesn’t work… not only is the bus loading area utter confusion, (what’s with the county not installing signs anyways) but you also can’t time the routes entering Smith Haven properly. There is just too many through routes

CI and Brentwood I am conflicted. I do believe we should have atleast one pulse point here to provide connections between different directions, but having pulse points at both is too much

The 4 should either fit into Brentwood or Central Islip. It shouldn’t need to make both

IDK how they went about scheduling things and at what point they started doing so, but as far as the pulse points, they should have started with the one with no through routes (Patchogue) and gone from there to see how it would play out. Babylon may have been able to work out a pulse point since the 2 passes in both directions around the same time, and then time the other routes could have been timed accordingly. 

I don't have a problem with Brentwood, especially since under this new system they ended up mixing up the segments of many of the former routes together (both north and south of the LIRR station). It should stay to allow riders to transfer wherever needed, and this will likely be one of the more useful transfer points. With Central Islip I'd be inclined to let the 4 just go through it without waiting for a connection if that timed transfer point makes it so problematic in terms of runtime/stopovers on the passenger side. Otherwise I'd leave it as is, because if anything it sounds like the runtime between timed points are the bigger issue. 

Riverhead I understand too, however what makes it stupid is:

• The 92 is a through route but effectively making a hefty stopover 
• The 80 exists
• The 66 goes through Riverhead LIRR from Patchogue, runs to Peconic Bay and back to terminate at Riverhead LIRR (missing itself by 1 minute at the LIRR station on Saturdays)

If they nerf the 80, have the 66 serve John Wesley Village (anybody going to Walmart will just have the transfer to the 62 at the LIRR or make their way to the 62), and split up the 92 at Riverhead, that pulse point would work out significantly better all routes would be better timed. Plus both splits of the 92 would have later service, the thing apparently lost some of its former service span under the new system SMH.

It's actually insane how SCT's instance on pushing with the 80 actually ends up screwing the 66 in the process. I know it might be somewhat ad nauseam at this point, but if simply kept the 10C (relabel it the 94 I suppose) as a fixed route between East Hampton and Montauk Village, and as a flex route around Montauk Village and to/from the Lighthouse (depending on where riders want to go, with enough runtime padded), that would have been significantly more useful than the 80.

I'm very glad the East Hampton microtransit zone was postponed and that they have some sort of equipment problem that's preventing the implementation, if they're gonna screw over the 10C like that I would prefer to keep both the 10B and 10C as is. If the microtransit zone was just simply around East Hampton and maybe some other sections further west (while keeping the 10C), I wouldn't be vehemently against it. However with SCT it's almost like talking to a brick wall, and when they end up responding to some comments they create another set of problems in the process. Speaking of the postponement though, it seems like the alert that mentioned on their page stating that it will be postponed through 12/31/2023 was quietly removed. 

 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

On 11/22/2023 at 2:16 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

In any case, I have an idea regarding some restructuring in the Brentwood/Central Islip area as follows:

S5: Operates from Babylon - Central Islip via Udall Road, Heartland Industrial Park, and Pilgrim Psychiatric Center...once it gets to Wicks Road it makes a left down Wicks Road/Moreland Avenue, and heads down Oser Avenue, Old Willets Path, Rabro Drive, and Simeon Woods Road to the NYS Office Building. Then it heads down the S17 route to Central Islip LIRR to terminate. Service reduced to hourly. For more frequent service from Hauppauge to the Main Line, take the S6, S11, or S58. Transfers to all of the Brentwood routes are still available elsewhere along the route (S4 at Deer Park, S7 at SCCC, S11/58 at Hauppauge).

S6 branched to operate via Old Willets Path/Jericho Turnpike and Veterans Memorial Highway. Weekend/evening service operates via Old Willets Path/Jericho Turnpike.

New S9 route created to operate from Babylon to Huntington Square Mall via Deer Park Avenue (Slight diversion up Commack Road to serve the back to Tanger Outlets and Nicholls Road on the north side of the LIRR tracks...riders closer to Deer Park Avenue can use the S12 if necessary to connect with the S9). Half-hourly service provided south of Tanger Outlets/Stop & Shop shopping plaza. S3 rerouted similar to old S23 north of Wyandanch, since the S9 covers Deer Park Avenue. 

S10 broken into S8 (Airport Plaza - Amityville via Albany Avenue) and S10 (Airport Plaza - Babylon via NY-109). 

S11: Operates from Bay Shore - Smith Haven Mall, using the existing route up to Motor Parkway & Adams Avenue...it makes a right on Adams Avenue, right on Oser Avenue, heads over to the NYS Office Building, and then continues up NY-347 (Smithtown Bypass), NY-111 (Hauppauge Road), CR-15 (Maple Avenue), and then Jericho Turnpike to terminate at Smith Haven Mall. I think Smith Haven & Smithtown could use the direct connection to Bay Shore/North Bay Shore & southern Brentwood moreso than they could use the (much more meandering) connection to Babylon.

S17 truncated to operate from Central Islip LIRR station to Islip LIRR station. Given that there's no timed transfer to the S2 anyway, anybody who wants to connect to the S2 would have plenty of time to walk down to Montauk Highway to make the connection (Plus with the apartments and supermarket near the Islip LIRR station, there should be a decent amount of ridership generated from that area).

S58 routed up Calebs Path instead of Joshuas Path.

5: Given the 11 would still run in this area from Brentwood, and that more people would end up gunning for the 4 and 7 because it serves the heart of Brentwood directly, I'm not too hot on this, especially going to Central lslip. I don't know if this is an attempt at trying to potentially interline the 5 and 17 together (instead of the 11), but I would leave the 5 out of it if so. There's more (potential and existing) demand to Brentwood than Central Islip.

It's already enough that you would have the route running down Udall Road and not Deer Park Avenue to (almost by) Tanger Outlets. Not to say that running it down Udall Road is a bad idea, I've been a proponent of restoring service there, it's just that there's a smaller catchment area by running along Udall Road versus Deer Park Avenue. On top of that you would have it miss a major transfer point (and a timed one at that) for individual segments which may or may not work out, depending on the transfers needed. Ultimately, I see this being a weaker version of the S27, not particularly too useful north of the Ronkonkoma Branch during most periods. 

3/9: This is something others have suggested in the past as well to some extent (including myself), although with some variances. I generally don't have issue with it (including the deviation to/from Tanger), and you get to keep 30 minute service on Deer Park Avenue south of the Ronkonkoma Branch. While I don't see the need for the 3 anymore along most of Deer Park Avenue by having the 9, the former S23 route north of Wyandanch carried air more often than not, if it wasn't for Five Towns College it would be even worse. I would prefer having it continue up Straight Path to Deer Park Avenue, then take Half Hollow (and vice-versa). That would still save runtime over the exiting alignment, and coupled with the elimination of the route along Hubbards Path, should provide sufficient layover in Babylon instead of what it currently is. 

8: This is more or less similar to what I've mentioned in the past, the one difference that I would probably have a one-way loop through North Lindenhurst, Pinelawn, and Farmingdale to also serve some of the industrial sections and even some residential sections with the same bus. These are sections that lost all service, first when the S35 was eliminated and then when the S31 was also eliminated. Basically from Route 109, buses would take Route 109 > Wellwood Avenue > Conklin Street > Broadhollow Road / Route 110 > Route 109 > Albany Avenue to Amityville LIRR. The current 10 schedule suggests such a routing is possible, as Amityville LIRR to Albany/Sidney Court (just south of Route 109) is 13 minutes each way, 26 minutes total. Google maps says that such a loop is from 13-16 minutes, so with some padding that's maybe like 16-22 minutes. At its worst it'll be around 50 minute total runtime. 

10: While I have no gripes with having a bus along Route 109, my question is what happens to Lindenhurst, which would be left with nothing (outside the 2 along Montauk Highway)? I don't agree with leaving it with nothing. 

11: I don't know whether it should take on the 5 north/east of Hauppauge or from Brentwood (replacing it), but I would ultimately have the 11 do one of those. Reason being that even more coverage along Jericho Turnpike would be lost, unless something else runs in that area. It also isn't like Smithtown Bypass is completely far from parts of the former S45. I would also not trim the route in the area to take Adams Avenue, because it looks closer than it is on a map. That walk to Moreland Road is nothing to overlook (17 minutes). It's faster to walk from Motor Parkway to Oser Avenue, however I am not encouraging nor in agreement with having something cut along Motor Parkway either. 

17: Out of the all the 30-minute routes that provided, I personally see the 17 as the weakest one out of all. I believe that part of the reason it even got it was because it managed to fit with the 11 in terms of total runtime, the timed transfers at the pulse locations and whatnot. With that said, I don't think truncating the route makes much sense without doing much else for the route. Even if it operate every 60 minutes I see this as a route that wouldn't get many people, more so with some of the changes you're proposing. 

As far as separating the 17 from the 11, I'm somewhere between indifferent and not opposed to it, because while I think the 11/17 interlining setup holds down the 17 in particular I don't know what could be done for the route. I don't think truncating the 17 though is the way, it will need as much direct service to as many locations as possible. Given that 2 doesn't connect to the 7, 11, and 12, extending the 17 out to Bay Shore may be an option because that may get you some ridership. If not for that, IDK what can be done going past the Hauppauge end of the route. However I would keep it serving Montauk Highway.

Edited November 25, 2023 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[checkmatechamp13]

8 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

5: Given the 11 would still run in this area from Brentwood, and that more people would end up gunning for the 4 and 7 because it serves the heart of Brentwood directly, I'm not too hot on this, especially going to Central lslip. I don't know if this is an attempt at trying to potentially interline the 5 and 17 together (instead of the 11), but I would leave the 5 out of it if so. There's more (potential and existing) demand to Brentwood than Central Islip.

It's already enough that you would have the route running down Udall Road and not Deer Park Avenue to (almost by) Tanger Outlets. Not to say that running it down Udall Road is a bad idea, I've been a proponent of restoring service there, it's just that there's a smaller catchment area by running along Udall Road versus Deer Park Avenue. On top of that you would have it miss a major transfer point (and a timed one at that) for individual segments which may or may not work out, depending on the transfers needed. Ultimately, I see this being a weaker version of the S27, not particularly too useful north of the Ronkonkoma Branch during most periods. 

That's my point...the 7 already connects that area to Brentwood LIRR, so there's no point in the 5 and 7 both running from NW Brentwood to "Downtown" Brentwood. The old S27 riders heading towards Brentwood LIRR would be better served transferring to the 4 rather than all of that backtracking through NW Brentwood. I find it a bit ironic that a network supposedly based around "frequency" has two frequent routes between Brentwood & Hauppauge (4/5) and two frequent routes between Central Islip & Hauppauge (6/17), plus the hourly 58, and yet they leave Manatuck Blvd with nothing. Also keep in mind that evenings and weekends, those sections of Hauppauge are pretty much dead ridership-wise, so the way I see it, nothing should be terminating in Hauppauge (even if it's just a quick layover to change the destination sign). So by making this adjustment, it eliminates a frequent Brentwood - Hauppauge route, eliminates a frequent route along Suffolk Avenue between Wicks Road and NY-111, and replaces a frequent Central Islip - Hauppauge route with an hourly route, while eliminating Hauppauge as an actual terminal. (Note that unlike CT Transit schedules for example, there's no indication that the 11/17 interline or that the 52A/B interline, though my position about ending routes in Hauppauge would be the same regardless). Those resources would be better-used elsewhere in the network. 

8 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

 3/9: This is something others have suggested in the past as well to some extent (including myself), although with some variances. I generally don't have issue with it (including the deviation to/from Tanger), and you get to keep 30 minute service on Deer Park Avenue south of the Ronkonkoma Branch. While I don't see the need for the 3 anymore along most of Deer Park Avenue by having the 9, the former S23 route north of Wyandanch carried air more often than not, if it wasn't for Five Towns College it would be even worse. I would prefer having it continue up Straight Path to Deer Park Avenue, then take Half Hollow (and vice-versa). That would still save runtime over the exiting alignment, and coupled with the elimination of the route along Hubbards Path, should provide sufficient layover in Babylon instead of what it currently is. 

Agreed.

8 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

8: This is more or less similar to what I've mentioned in the past, the one difference that I would probably have a one-way loop through North Lindenhurst, Pinelawn, and Farmingdale to also serve some of the industrial sections and even some residential sections with the same bus. These are sections that lost all service, first when the S35 was eliminated and then when the S31 was also eliminated. Basically from Route 109, buses would take Route 109 > Wellwood Avenue > Conklin Street > Broadhollow Road / Route 110 > Route 109 > Albany Avenue to Amityville LIRR. The current 10 schedule suggests such a routing is possible, as Amityville LIRR to Albany/Sidney Court (just south of Route 109) is 13 minutes each way, 26 minutes total. Google maps says that such a loop is from 13-16 minutes, so with some padding that's maybe like 16-22 minutes. At its worst it'll be around 50 minute total runtime. 

Agreed.

8 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

10: While I have no gripes with having a bus along Route 109, my question is what happens to Lindenhurst, which would be left with nothing (outside the 2 along Montauk Highway)? I don't agree with leaving it with nothing. 

Hmmm...good question...I'd almost be inclined to either create a standalone route via John Street between Babylon & Amityville, or see if there is enough layover time in the 10 to instead terminate it at GSB Shopping Center via John Street/Wellwood Avenue/Montauk Highway. 

8 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

11: I don't know whether it should take on the 5 north/east of Hauppauge or from Brentwood (replacing it), but I would ultimately have the 11 do one of those. Reason being that even more coverage along Jericho Turnpike would be lost, unless something else runs in that area. It also isn't like Smithtown Bypass is completely far from parts of the former S45. I would also not trim the route in the area to take Adams Avenue, because it looks closer than it is on a map. That walk to Moreland Road is nothing to overlook (17 minutes). It's faster to walk from Motor Parkway to Oser Avenue, however I am not encouraging nor in agreement with having something cut along Motor Parkway either. 

Along Jericho Turnpike, I would have the 6 cover it. (Riders heading east would either have to transfer in Hauppauge or Central Islip). Either that, or have your Hicksville - Smith Haven regional route cover it. 

Walking down Maple Avenue from Jericho Turnpike down to Hauppauge Road and NY-347 is 2 miles...that means someone in the middle is a mile from the nearest route...given the density of that area, I don't think that's reasonable.

As for Adams Avenue, I was thinking because Moreland Road is covered by the 5, but I could live with it continuing down to Moreland Road (especially since Moreland Road crosses the LIE, technically making it accessible to people in NW Brentwood...actually come to think of it, that technically is the closest route to some folks north of Community College Drive today). 

8 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

17: Out of the all the 30-minute routes that provided, I personally see the 17 as the weakest one out of all. I believe that part of the reason it even got it was because it managed to fit with the 11 in terms of total runtime, the timed transfers at the pulse locations and whatnot. With that said, I don't think truncating the route makes much sense without doing much else for the route. Even if it operate every 60 minutes I see this as a route that wouldn't get many people, more so with some of the changes you're proposing. 

As far as separating the 17 from the 11, I'm somewhere between indifferent and not opposed to it, because while I think the 11/17 interlining setup holds down the 17 in particular I don't know what could be done for the route. I don't think truncating the 17 though is the way, it will need as much direct service to as many locations as possible. Given that 2 doesn't connect to the 7, 11, and 12, extending the 17 out to Bay Shore may be an option because that may get you some ridership. If not for that, IDK what can be done going past the Hauppauge end of the route. However I would keep it serving Montauk Highway.

If you think about it, with the old 3C, there were two buses per hour heading south out of Central Islip LIRR (one towards Carleton Avenue and the courthouses and one towards Lowell Avenue and the South Shore Mall). Plus the S42 heading south, so I don't think they would've essentially taken three hourly routes and replaced them with one single hourly route that doesn't even connect to the LIRR on the southern end. 

I think the route south of the Central Islip LIRR station holds its own, but I wouldn't be opposed to an extension to Bay Shore.

Side note, for the existing routes that terminate in Bay Shore, I'd adjust the routes of the 11 and 12 to better-serve the LIRR station. The 12 I'd have run down Union Blvd & Park Avenue to the current bus terminal, and the 11 I'd have it just run straight across Union Blvd to 4th Avenue (there's entrances to the hospital from Union Blvd). 

Edited November 26, 2023 by checkmatechamp13

[B35 via Church]

On 11/25/2023 at 5:14 AM, Mtatransit said:

Finally SCT feels like a network of routes...

That was one of my biggest gripes of the old network; they felt like a bunch of routes running singularly/isolated within themselves in the network, instead of operating cohesively within a bus network....

On 11/25/2023 at 5:25 AM, Mtatransit said:

1) (what’s with the county not installing signs anyways)

2) CI and Brentwood I am conflicted. I do believe we should have atleast one pulse point here to provide connections between different directions, but having pulse points at both is too much

3) The 4 should either fit into Brentwood or Central Islip. It shouldn’t need to make both

1) The fact that you had placards for bus stops alone, is evident enough that the completion date of this new network was expedited...

2) I'll just be blunt here.... LIRR Central Islip was always a shit terminal in the old network & really has no business being a pulse point at all in the new network...

3) @Lex got the right idea with this, AFAIC... It, along with the #2, as major/vital east-west routes in the network that currently pan through multiple of these timed connection points, should have more service than the other routes at the respective timed connection points they gotta get to... That way, there'd be that much less of a need/reliance to have those 2 routes (route #2 & route #4) try to link up at these different timed connection points....

18 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

IDK how they went about scheduling things and at what point they started doing so, but as far as the pulse points, they should have started with the one with no through routes (Patchogue) and gone from there to see how it would play out. Babylon may have been able to work out a pulse point since the 2 passes in both directions around the same time, and then time the other routes could have been timed accordingly.

I don't have a problem with Brentwood, especially since under this new system they ended up mixing up the segments of many of the former routes together (both north and south of the LIRR station). It should stay to allow riders to transfer wherever needed, and this will likely be one of the more useful transfer points....

To be clear, my problem is not with Brentwood singularly - my problem is with multiple pulse points in one network.... Of the current pulse points, Brentwood potentially serves as the best one in the whole county... Brentwood as a pulse point shouldn't need to be graduated to, from having Patchogue serve as a pulse point first...

15 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

17: Out of the all the 30-minute routes that provided, I personally see the 17 as the weakest one out of all. I believe that part of the reason it even got it was because it managed to fit with the 11 in terms of total runtime, the timed transfers at the pulse locations and whatnot. With that said, I don't think truncating the route makes much sense without doing much else for the route. Even if it operate every 60 minutes I see this as a route that wouldn't get many people, more so with some of the changes you're proposing. 

As far as separating the 17 from the 11, I'm somewhere between indifferent and not opposed to it, because while I think the 11/17 interlining setup holds down the 17 in particular I don't know what could be done for the route. I don't think truncating the 17 though is the way, it will need as much direct service to as many locations as possible. Given that 2 doesn't connect to the 7, 11, and 12, extending the 17 out to Bay Shore may be an option because that may get you some ridership. If not for that, IDK what can be done going past the Hauppauge end of the route. However I would keep it serving Montauk Highway.

I don't think there's any question that the current #17 looms as the weakest of them.... But yeah, I can't agree with having that route running back & forth LIRR Islip & LIRR Central Islip all day either.... I don't remotely see LIRR Islip doing much of anything for it...

As far as extensions go, I would extend every other trip past the County offices to have it serve Siena Hospital... Unless actually requested, you don't revoke service from medical centers like that....  As for Bay Shore, I agree, that was a missed opportunity; I always thought there should've been a route running from either Bay Shore (Mechanicsville rd) or LIRR Babylon, running to the Federal courts in Central Islip... I could most certainly see folks xferring b/w #12's & #17's if it served Bay Shore....

In any event, I think it was hypocritical to have done away with north-south bus service from Sayville (which had buses formerly ending at Montauk Hwy), but have this new #17 end at Carleton/Montauk Hwy....

9 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

1) If you think about it, with the old 3C, there were two buses per hour heading south out of Central Islip LIRR (one towards Carleton Avenue and the courthouses and one towards Lowell Avenue and the South Shore Mall). Plus the S42 heading south, so I don't think they would've essentially taken three hourly routes and replaced them with one single hourly route that doesn't even connect to the LIRR on the southern end.

2) I think the route south of the Central Islip LIRR station holds its own, but I wouldn't be opposed to an extension to Bay Shore.

1) A better way of putting this is, is that you don't think they'd combine service from 3 corridors (Carleton av., Connetquot av., Islip av.) into one corridor, that doesn't even have it connecting to the RR....

2) Only between the LIRR station & the courts.... Carleton, south of the Southern state was, and I don't doubt still is just as dead as Islip av. was with the old S42.... I get the basic having of a bus route serve a RR station, but I think you're overemphasizing having the S17 serve LIRR Islip in particular...

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church @BM5 via Woodhaven Out of curiosity, what would be your ranking of efficiency of the routes in the new network? (I'd personally consider the S52 to be a bit weaker than the S17). I'd say as follows (to clarify, when I say efficiency, I mean ridership relative to length and allocated frequency)

S1

S4

S66

S2

S7

S11

S6

S51

S55

S12

S5

S58

S53

S17

S52A/S52B

S3

S62

S10

S77/77Y

S80

 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

@checkmatechamp13I guess you're asking something akin to ridership per bus per mile here? I think it's a bit early to tell, but some of them I think are ranked a little low (like the 62). 

Time will tell although I predict it may play out as follows: 

4 

1

66 

5

2

6

51

7

58

11

92

55

62

12

53

52A/52B

77/77Y

3

17 > 10 (barely though)

.....

....

...

..

.

80

While the 1 has Route 110 and is fairly busy on its own, I could see the 4 beating out the 1 because it's a workhorse. It's basically an S33 if it went to Brentwood + the former 3D, both which part of the stronger routes in the system. The potential of the 4 is nothing to ignore. 

Reason why the 2 isn't as high, is because of the section west of Babylon. I don't see it carrying nearly as much per bus as points east. I get that the S20 wasn't the most ideal route, but even with the boost in frequency up to three times of that of one of the S20 loops, I don't think any increase in ridership would be proportional. 

The 51 while I think could hold up between Smith Haven and Port Jefferson, I'm still unsure about the segment between Patchogue and Port Jefferson. You'll get some S63 & S59, plus many of the 7A riders I suppose, but I still don't think it'll do too hot there. 

Might be a bit of a hot take, but I can see the 62 carrying more than the 12. It's not as busy as the 58 but it isn't anything to ignore, and it's routing through Riverhead may offset some of the losses by being truncated to Smith Haven. Even if the 12 gets 100% of the former 2A/2B riders, it wouldn't match up to the S62 ridership. And even though the 62 is a longer route than the 12, I still think it'll rank higher. 

The five routes I ranked below the 53 I see more or less around the same. The 52 I can potentially see it do better than the 77 by a bit, in part because with the 77, I'm not sure how many in Bellport would actually take the route if they need Patchogue vs. walking up to the 66. The 66 also I think will get more of the North Bellport ridership now that it's running in that area.

Even though the 6A wasn't all that hot, I do think given that they're coupling Gordon Heights, sending the route to Central Islip LIRR, and serving some of those Casinos and commercial areas near the Motor Parkway and LIE, I see more going for the 52. However I wouldn't rank it above the 53, in part because of the frequency. Had the 52 been an hourly route I could predict it  be neck and neck with the 53. 

The 17's frequency is part of the reason why it's ranked so low for the type of route it is, the other (as B35 also mentioned in a previous post) is that I don't really see much of the route warranting said frequency. Even on hourly headways it would not garner many people. So that relatively low ridership is further diluted by it's frequency. 

I think the 80 speaks for itself.

Edited November 26, 2023 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Mtatransit]

6 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

@checkmatechamp13I guess you're asking something akin to ridership per bus per mile here? I think it's a bit early to tell, but some of them I think are ranked a little low (like the 62). 

Time will tell although I predict it may play out as follows: 

4 

1

66 

5

2

6

51

7

58

11

92

55

62

12

53

52A/52B

77/77Y

3

17 > 10 (barely though)

.....

....

...

..

.

80

While the 1 has Route 110 and is fairly busy on its own, I could see the 4 beating out the 1 because it's a workhorse. It's basically an S33 if it went to Brentwood + the former 3D, both which part of the stronger routes in the system. The potential of the 4 is nothing to ignore. 

Reason why the 2 isn't as high, is because of the section west of Babylon. I don't see it carrying nearly as much per bus as points east. I get that the S20 wasn't the most ideal route, but even with the boost in frequency up to three times of that of one of the S20 loops, I don't think any increase in ridership would be proportional. 

The 51 while I think could hold up between Smith Haven and Port Jefferson, I'm still unsure about the segment between Patchogue and Port Jefferson. You'll get some S63 & S59, plus many of the 7A riders I suppose, but I still don't think it'll do too hot there. 

Might be a bit of a hot take, but I can see the 62 carrying more than the 12. It's not as busy as the 58 but it isn't anything to ignore, and it's routing through Riverhead may offset some of the losses by being truncated to Smith Haven. Even if the 12 gets 100% of the former 2A/2B riders, it wouldn't match up to the S62 ridership. And even though the 62 is a longer route than the 12, I still think it'll rank higher. 

The five routes I ranked below the 53 I see more or less around the same. The 52 I can potentially see it do better than the 77 by a bit, in part because with the 77, I'm not sure how many in Bellport would actually take the route if they need Patchogue vs. walking up to the 66. The 66 also I think will get more of the North Bellport ridership now that it's running in that area.

Even though the 6A wasn't all that hot, I do think given that they're coupling Gordon Heights, sending the route to Central Islip LIRR, and serving some of those Casinos and commercial areas near the Motor Parkway and LIE, I see more going for the 52. However I wouldn't rank it above the 53, in part because of the frequency. Had the 52 been an hourly route I could predict it  be neck and neck with the 53. 

The 17's frequency is part of the reason why it's ranked so low for the type of route it is, the other (as B35 also mentioned in a previous post) is that I don't really see much of the route warranting said frequency. Even on hourly headways it would not garner many people. So that relatively low ridership is further diluted by it's frequency. 

I think the 80 speaks for itself.

I don’t believe the 2 west of Babylon will do as bad as you envisioned. From my experience riding the buses out there n19 carried more ridership than the loop S20 along Montauk Highway, so hopefully this new 2 will get some of that ridership back. I still would rank it slightly higher than the 5

I agree with your assessment on the 4. That thing is a straight shot from Smith Haven to Central Islip/Brentwood, and makes multiple good connections with other routes

Regarding the 12 I would definitely rank that above the 62. The new 12 routes is better than the old 2A/B which went down every single side street they serve. That route doesn’t have good connections that the other Bay Shore routes have though

The 62 is just way too long of a route. Smith Haven - PJ should be fine but there is a long stretch of route between PJ and Riverhead proper where it carries air

[checkmatechamp13]

@BM5 via Woodhaven I just realized I forgot to include the S92 in there. I'd probably rank it just below the S58. (On a side note, I hope the suburban transit agencies start releasing their ridership numbers similar to how the MTA does it every year...ideally with all the different metrics...ridership per revenue hour...cost per rider...etc)

In any case, I think the S7 definitely needs to be boosted in your ranking. Brentwood - Bay Shore is definitely busier than Brentwood - Babylon (even though Babylon is the busier rail station, Bay Shore is the busier bus hub...and then north of the LIRR, the S7 has less competition from nearby routes compared to the S5). Thinking again (and this time, taking a look at page 51/86 of the Choices & Concepts report which I didn't do in the first list), I think a reasonable reorder (anything adjusted by more than two spaces on the list shown in red would be 4, 1, 66, 7, 2, 5, 6, 51, 11, 58, 92, 55, 53, 12, 62, 17, 52A/52B, 77/77Y, 3, 10, 80)

For the S53 one of the things that will make it difference in keeping ridership even with the S55 is the scheduling. The S53/55 are offset so that there is essentially 30 minute service heading directly south from Port Jefferson to Patchogue at all times (obviously the S51 takes a more circuitous route). The S53 is the one designed to connect to the other Patchogue routes during evenings/weekends. The S55 only really connects well with the S58 at Coram Plaza (eastbound S58 to southbound S55 and vice versa). On weekends, the S55 is timed well for passengers going towards Gordon Heights on the S52A....anyway, as a whole the S53 is generally better-timed than the S55, so I think that will make a fairly big difference in ridership.

For the S17, for reference, the old 3C performed a bit better than the 3B and the S60, just to give an idea of the density of areas served (obviously the S60 served Gordon Heights specifically, since we're also discussing the S52A/S52B). They also added (back) some stops by Central Islip Town Centre and those condos on Sunburst Blvd, which I think will definitely boost ridership in that area (Before, it was basically Smith Street and then straight to the courthouses...I think a few trips deviated to Bishop McGann Village).

For the S62, the old 2A performed right on par with the S62...the 2B performed higher than both (on par with the S25 and slightly lower than the S29/S60). The S62, while basically "the only show in town" for that whole region of Suffolk County (between Port Jefferson Station and Riverhead) doesn't really hit any high-density areas...it serves Rocky Point and Sound Beach, but it's somewhat far from the heart of the residential areas (Wading River admittedly it goes right through). So you're sort of scraping together what you can out of those areas, and then hoping that the higher-density sections of Riverhead and the areas west of Port Jefferson Station can hold down the fort. Compare to the S12 where there's consistently higher-density throughout the route.

On a side note, I forget if I mentioned this, but I think the S12 should take Howells Road directly into 4th Avenue, allowing it to directly serve the Bay Shore LIRR station (between that and the S7/11 serving it from Union Blvd as mentioned earlier, it would it a better bus-rail transfer point, though I'd still have buses terminating at Mechanicsville Road, since that is closer to the heart of "Downtown" Bay Shore). 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

15 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@BM5 via Woodhaven I just realized I forgot to include the S92 in there. I'd probably rank it just below the S58. (On a side note, I hope the suburban transit agencies start releasing their ridership numbers similar to how the MTA does it every year...ideally with all the different metrics...ridership per revenue hour...cost per rider...etc)

In any case, I think the S7 definitely needs to be boosted in your ranking. Brentwood - Bay Shore is definitely busier than Brentwood - Babylon (even though Babylon is the busier rail station, Bay Shore is the busier bus hub...and then north of the LIRR, the S7 has less competition from nearby routes compared to the S5). Thinking again (and this time, taking a look at page 51/86 of the Choices & Concepts report which I didn't do in the first list), I think a reasonable reorder (anything adjusted by more than two spaces on the list shown in red would be 4, 1, 66, 7, 2, 5, 6, 51, 11, 58, 92, 55, 53, 12, 62, 17, 52A/52B, 77/77Y, 3, 10, 80)

 

The Brentwood - Bay Shore demand is divided amongst two routes, whereas the Brentwood-Babylon demand is still under one route. I would not write off the 5's segment between Babylon and Brentwood given how it serves it. The 5 is slated to garner most S29 ridership, a good chunk of S23 ridership, and some S27 and S33 ridership.  Between Bay Shore and Brentwood, the 7 tends to replicate more of the S41 than the S45 (which was the busier of the two route). I also wouldn't count out the effect the H10 and H40 can have on total ridership on the 7, because they overlap directly or very close to it north of Jericho Turnpike. That's not to say the 7 wouldn't hold on it's own, but I can't see it being fourth. 

15 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

For the S17, for reference, the old 3C performed a bit better than the 3B and the S60, just to give an idea of the density of areas served (obviously the S60 served Gordon Heights specifically, since we're also discussing the S52A/S52B). They also added (back) some stops by Central Islip Town Centre and those condos on Sunburst Blvd, which I think will definitely boost ridership in that area (Before, it was basically Smith Street and then straight to the courthouses...I think a few trips deviated to Bishop McGann Village).

For the S62, the old 2A performed right on par with the S62...the 2B performed higher than both (on par with the S25 and slightly lower than the S29/S60). The S62, while basically "the only show in town" for that whole region of Suffolk County (between Port Jefferson Station and Riverhead) doesn't really hit any high-density areas...it serves Rocky Point and Sound Beach, but it's somewhat far from the heart of the residential areas (Wading River admittedly it goes right through). So you're sort of scraping together what you can out of those areas, and then hoping that the higher-density sections of Riverhead and the areas west of Port Jefferson Station can hold down the fort. Compare to the S12 where there's consistently higher-density throughout the route.

Keep in mind that statistics (performance) you're referencing are boardings per revenue hour. Revenue hours dependent on number of trips, route length, and frequency. It might be easier to compare when the frequencies are the same, but in the case of the 12 vs. 62, the 12 runs every 30 minutes during the day on weekdays while the 62 runs every 60 minutes during that same period. The 12 also primarily replicates most of the former 2B, and not much of the 2A. It's not necessarily close or feasible to walk between many of the individual segments of the former 2A/2B either.

You'd basically have to almost halve the boardings per hour as a result. So realistically you're looking at most 2B ridership, plus some 2A ridership, plus whatever boost the route gets from doubling the frequency and extending the service hours (the latter which the S62 is also receiving). Again time will tell, but I could see the 62 pulling it off over the 12 for that reason. If the 12 was an hourly route I wouldn't hesitate to go with the 12. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[checkmatechamp13]

22 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The Brentwood - Bay Shore demand is divided amongst two routes, whereas the Brentwood-Babylon demand is still under one route. I would not write off the 5's segment between Babylon and Brentwood given how it serves it. The 5 is slated to garner most S29 ridership, a good chunk of S23 ridership, and some S27 and S33 ridership.  Between Bay Shore and Brentwood, the 7 tends to replicate more of the S41 than the S45 (which was the busier of the two route). I also wouldn't count out the effect the H10 and H40 can have on total ridership on the 7, because they overlap directly or very close to it north of Jericho Turnpike. That's not to say the 7 wouldn't hold on it's own, but I can't see it being fourth. 

Keep in mind that statistics (performance) you're referencing are boardings per revenue hour. Revenue hours dependent on number of trips, route length, and frequency. It might be easier to compare when the frequencies are the same, but in the case of the 12 vs. 62, the 12 runs every 30 minutes during the day on weekdays while the 62 runs every 60 minutes during that same period. The 12 also primarily replicates most of the former 2B, and not much of the 2A. It's not necessarily close or feasible to walk between many of the individual segments of the former 2A/2B either.

You'd basically have to almost halve the boardings per hour as a result. So realistically you're looking at most 2B ridership, plus some 2A ridership, plus whatever boost the route gets from doubling the frequency and extending the service hours (the latter which the S62 is also receiving). Again time will tell, but I could see the 62 pulling it off over the 12 for that reason. If the 12 was an hourly route I wouldn't hesitate to go with the 12. 

Brentwood - Bay Shore is divided among two routes, but remember that under the old system, there were four routes heading south out of Brentwood (S41, S45, 3A/3B), and multiple routes (S45, 2A/2B, S42) traveling between Bay Shore and South Shore Mall. Downtown Bay Shore - South Shore Mall all gets concentrated into the 7 (any riders traveling solely within that segment, plus transferring riders). Then there's also over a mile of Brentwood Road (literally all the way down to the border with North Bay Shore...actually longer than the portion of Brentwood Road south of Spur Drive North that used to be served by the S45) that also gets concentrated onto the 7. 

The S45 was busier than the S41, but also keep in mind that the S45 was more frequent and ran later (It was a similar situation to the S54...it still irks me that they considered the S45 to be an hourly route while the S54 was considered a 30 minute route). Even with the H10/H40 in the mix, I still can't see it being less efficient than the 5 (the 7 is also shorter time-wise and distance-wise than the 5...) I can see the 2 beating out the 7 (depending on how the segment west of Babylon holds up), but not the 5.

For the 12, also keep in mind that (unless they restore Udall Road service) that there's also going to be some S27 riders who will need to use the 12 to connect to another route. The old 2B saw a tad under 10 passengers per hour, whereas the 2A & S62 saw about 6 passengers per hour. Half of 10 is 5...I'd say the 2A riders, whatever minimal amount of S27 riders, plus the riders gained by increasing the frequency (and let's assume that the timed transfers and extended span work similarly for both) would edge it out in favor of the 12, but like you said, we'll see as time goes on...

[checkmatechamp13]

Some more updates:

* Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 80 in Riverhead will operate as a hourly one-way circulator route beginning and ending at the Riverhead LIRR timed transfer. Service on Route 80 will now be available at Calverton Hills, the Riverhead Plaza shopping center (Gala Fresh), and Suffolk County DSS offices. See route notice here and timetable here for more information. (The weekday 58 diversion to Calverton Hills will no longer operate starting Monday).

* Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 3 will no longer operate on Half Hollow Road south of the Long Island Expressway. Route 3 will now continue along Deer Park Avenue (north of Half Hollow Road) and the Long Island Expressway Service Roads (between Deer Park Avenue and Half Hollow Road). See route notice here for more information.

* Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 53 will loop into College Plaza in Selden both northbound and southbound to serve a new stop near Wren Kitchens/ShopRite.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

54 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Some more updates:

* Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 80 in Riverhead will operate as a hourly one-way circulator route beginning and ending at the Riverhead LIRR timed transfer. Service on Route 80 will now be available at Calverton Hills, the Riverhead Plaza shopping center (Gala Fresh), and Suffolk County DSS offices. See route notice here and timetable here for more information. (The weekday 58 diversion to Calverton Hills will no longer operate starting Monday).

* Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 3 will no longer operate on Half Hollow Road south of the Long Island Expressway. Route 3 will now continue along Deer Park Avenue (north of Half Hollow Road) and the Long Island Expressway Service Roads (between Deer Park Avenue and Half Hollow Road). See route notice here for more information.

* Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 53 will loop into College Plaza in Selden both northbound and southbound to serve a new stop near Wren Kitchens/ShopRite.

They're desperately trying everything they can to keep the 80, that they now have it running along more of the 62 route? They're literally gonna be competing for riders leaving Riverhead since they're timed together, SMH. The one thing I guess that isn't terrible is that it serves Calverton Hills, but that alone isn't gonna cut it. 

Just thought about it, if they want to have something to Calverton Hills, I would suggest looking into a Riverhead - Shirley type of route via the LIE. They can name it the 80 for all I care. Basically it would be the Riverhead transfer Point, via Nugent Drive, the LIE, and William Floyd Parkway. It would be a limited-express hybrid route, similar to that of Westchester Bee-Line's Route 17. Basically this would be the stops:

• Local stops within Riverhead
• Calverton Hills
• LIE Exit 70 (Manorville)
• Walmart Supercenter in Yaphank off the LIE by William Floyd Parkway (towards Shirley Only - to Riverhead one would ride through Shirley)
• Local stops down William Floyd Parkway to Montauk Highway
• Immediately back to Riverhead making same stops (minus Walmart)

Here's what the route would look like. 

Not meant to compete with the 66, moreso to connect some areas with no public transit options (some which should probably have some). However it will provide connections to/from the 66 at Shirley for anyone who would need it. Without a doubt more useful than the existing or proposed rendition of the 80 that they are creating here. You could also do a round trip within an hour, it would be kinda tight at times but it's possible. If it wasn't so tight I would have also suggested having it serve Walmart on its way to Riverhead. 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[The TransitMan]

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Some more updates:

* Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 80 in Riverhead will operate as a hourly one-way circulator route beginning and ending at the Riverhead LIRR timed transfer. Service on Route 80 will now be available at Calverton Hills, the Riverhead Plaza shopping center (Gala Fresh), and Suffolk County DSS offices. See route notice here and timetable here for more information. (The weekday 58 diversion to Calverton Hills will no longer operate starting Monday).

* Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 3 will no longer operate on Half Hollow Road south of the Long Island Expressway. Route 3 will now continue along Deer Park Avenue (north of Half Hollow Road) and the Long Island Expressway Service Roads (between Deer Park Avenue and Half Hollow Road). See route notice here for more information.

* Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 53 will loop into College Plaza in Selden both northbound and southbound to serve a new stop near Wren Kitchens/ShopRite.

THAT did not take long either. I knew that was going to happen by bringing service back to Calverton Hills...just a matter of when.

[hounddriver]

This new route system seems to be a joke from my observations,at least on the north shore. Every time I see a bus,it's nearly empty or empty. I think one of the biggest mistakes is routing the 5 off Jericho Tpke down Old Willets Path insteading of continuing on Jericho(previous S58) leaving that stretch through Commack with no service. Also-what's taking so long for new bus stop signage?

[checkmatechamp13]

@BM5 via Woodhaven Maybe they could look at interlining such a route with the 62, having it do a full loop through Shirley (Titmus Drive and Moriches-Middle Island Road) and serving the Walmart in both directions. 

[checkmatechamp13]

I just took a look at the College Plaza Shopping Center, and I really hope they designed the loop to be a straight shot through the shopping plaza and not a full-blown loop (passing through the intersection of College Road & Middle Country Road twice). If you run straight through the shopping plaza, you actually avoid a traffic light. In cases like this, I guess it makes it easier that they didn't put permanent signs on the poles yet.

Ideally, they would also shift the stop at College Road & Cherry Street to be a bit further up (closer to Middle Country Road for those transferring to/from the 58).

[B35 via Church]

On 11/26/2023 at 10:27 PM, Mtatransit said:

On 11/26/2023 at 3:43 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Reason why the 2 isn't as high, is because of the section west of Babylon. I don't see it carrying nearly as much per bus as points east. I get that the S20 wasn't the most ideal route, but even with the boost in frequency up to three times of that of one of the S20 loops, I don't think any increase in ridership would be proportional. 

I don’t believe the 2 west of Babylon will do as bad as you envisioned. From my experience riding the buses out there n19 carried more ridership than the loop S20 along Montauk Highway, so hopefully this new 2 will get some of that ridership back.

I happen to agree with him; that ridership west of Babylon is spent... Not that the old S40 was that high in the efficiency department, but having an Amityville - Patchogue route  significantly makes a route of sorts that much more inefficient..... There's too big of a time lapse between [the current running of this new #2] & [the last time the n19 ran out to Babylon], to hope for this new #2 getting any of that ridership back... To be frank, the n19 along Montauk Hwy. wasn't all that strong anyway; the S20 was still the primary route of choice by most people b/w Babylon & Sunrise.... It is that rendition of the S20 (as in, before they turned it into a loop route) that lost more ridership throughout the course of time, I'd argue, than the n19 ever really garnered along Montauk Hwy....

On 11/27/2023 at 7:17 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The Brentwood - Bay Shore demand is divided amongst two routes, whereas the Brentwood-Babylon demand is still under one route. I would not write off the 5's segment between Babylon and Brentwood given how it serves it. The 5 is slated to garner most S29 ridership, a good chunk of S23 ridership, and some S27 and S33 ridership.  Between Bay Shore and Brentwood, the 7 tends to replicate more of the S41 than the S45 (which was the busier of the two route). I also wouldn't count out the effect the H10 and H40 can have on total ridership on the 7, because they overlap directly or very close to it north of Jericho Turnpike. That's not to say the 7 wouldn't hold on it's own, but I can't see it being fourth.

I'd wholly agree with this take if the #7 wasn't the only route serving South Shore Mall.... I'd be surprised if there aren't currently a lot of people xferring in Brentwood or Bay Shore for access to that mall.... Whitman is too upscale for the everyday shopper (which is what killed demand from off all the bus routes still serving it) & Sunrise is dead (which saw more Suffolk patrons than you might think in its heyday).... The people that don't go to Smith Haven, either go here, or a little further up to Deer Park Tanger...

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church Back in the day, what were ridership patterns like on the S20 (in its Babylon - Sunrise Mall form)? Was it primarily picking up/dropping off riders coming to/from Sunrise Mall, or was there some turnover?

What I'm particularly interested in is transfer activity between the S1 and S20 (I know it isn't quite a fair comparison since Montauk Highway isn't that close to the areas up by Oak Street and John Street, but just to get an idea of how many people in that general area are seeking access to NY-110). Most of the other connections which were previously available at Sunrise Mall are now available at Amityville LIRR station, but the one big benefit at Amityville (for a Montauk Highway route) is the connection to NY-110, which was available on the S20, but not the N19.