HomeMy WebLinkAboutEast Hampton Transportation PlanTOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT
Prepared By:
L.F~ McLEAN A~SOCIATBS, P.C.
AUGUST 1997
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
TOWN OF EAST ~N TRANSPORTATION PLAN
TABLE OF CON'i'~FS
Executive Summary
Introduction
Overview of Circulation
Mobility Deficiencies and Potential Solutions
3.1 Peak Tourist Season
3.2 NY Route 27
3.3 "Downtown" Areas
3.4 Other Mobility Deficiencies
3.5 Special Events
3.6 Public Input Process
3.'7 Future Growth and Development
3.8 Potential Alternative Solutions
3.9 Experience in Other Locales
Rail Transportation
4.1 Existing Service and Ridership
4.2 Capital Projects
4.3 Needs and Deficiencies
4.4 Recommendations
Bus Transportation
5.1 Ridership Characteristics
5.2 Funding
5.3 Bus Routes and Ridership
5.4 Bus Service
5.5 Needs
5.6 Recommendations
PAGE
S-l
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-3
3-4
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-9
3-10
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
SECTION
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION
Ferries
6.1 Existing Service
6.2 Potential Service
6.3 Potential Service {o Montauk
6.4 Potential Ferry Activity
6.5 Recommendations
Airports
7.1 Town Airport
7.2 Montauk Airport
7.3 Recommendations
Highways
8.1 Highway Network
8.2 Traffic Volumes
8.3 Highway Capacity
8.4 Traffic Accidents
8.5 Future Capacity & Safety Improvements
.8.6 Other Highway Needs
8.7 'Traffic Calming'
8.8 Recommendations
"Downtown' Areas
9.1 Mobility
9.2 Parking
9.3 Pedestrian Travel
9.4 Needs and Deficiencies
9.5 Recommendations
Bicycles
10.1 Current and Planned Bicycle Facilities
10.2 Needs and Deficiencies
10.3 Recommendations
PAGE
6-I
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-21
6-21
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-2
8-1
8-1
8-2
8-5
8-6
8-8
8-8
8-13
8-16
9-1
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-4
10-1
10-1
10-2
10-3
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
Appendix A
TOWN OF EAST I-IAMI~ON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTId/qTS
Other Modes of Travel
11.1 Taxis
11.2 Rollerblading
1!.3 Recommendations
Demand Management
12.1 Clean Air Act Amendments
12.2 Demand Management Techniques
12.3 Applicable Techniques for ~t Hampton
12.4 'Recommendations
Land Use Plan
13.1 Relationship to Transportation
13.2 Recommendations
Regional Considerations
14.1 Relationship to Town of Southampton
1996 Comprehensive Plan Up-Date
14.2 East End Issues
14.3 Recommendations
Funding and Implementing of Recommendations
15.1 Transportation Improvement Program
15.2 Town Funding
15.3 Public/Private Partnerships
15.4 Recommendations
Bibliography
LCitizens A~ddvisory Committee~eeting Summaries
PAGE
11-1
11-1
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-8
12-10
13-1
13-2
14-1
14-1
14-2
14-6
15-1
15-2
15-2
15-6
15-8
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
4-1
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
8-5
8-6
8-7
8-8
8-9
8-10A,B
8-11
8-12
8-13, 8-13A
10-1
14-1
LIST OF F_.XHIBITS
Title
Location Plan
Study Area
License Plate Study
Average Daily Traffic by Month
P~t Hampton Time Delay
Amagansett Time Delay
Montauk Time Delay
Airports and Rnilroad Stations
Bus Routes
Potential Terminal Sites-Ferry Service to Montauk
Town Airport Layout Plan
Federal Aid Eligible Roadways
1996 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Count Station No. 4 Data - P~sthound
Count Station No. 4 Data - Westbound
Count Station No. 5 Data - Eastbound
Count Station No. 5 Data - Westbound
Count Station No. 26 Data ~ Eastbound
Count Station No. 26 Data - Westbound
1965, 1982 and 1996 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Comparison
Existing Turning Movement Volume Map
Arterial Level of Service
High Accident Locations
Conceptual North Main Street Realignment Alternatives
Bicycle Facilities
Vision Goals - 'Southampton Tomorrow-Transportation"
2-1
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-4
3-4
3-4
4-1
5-1
6-3
'7-2
8-2
8-2
8-3
8-3
8-3
8-3
8-3
8-3
8-3
8-4
8-5
8-7
8-16
10-2
14-1
LIST OF TABLES
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-1
3-2
4-1
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-'/
8-1
8-lA
8-2
8-3
8-4
8-5
12-1
15-1
Title
Origin of Eastbound Vehicles - Route 27
Origin of Eastbound Vehicles - AM Count
Origin of Pa~tbound Vehicles - PM Count
Comparison of Summer and "Off Smson" Traffic
Volumes of Route 27
Future Level of Service with Potential Traffic
Growth along Route 27
LIRR Service to Montank
Bus Routes and Fn~luencies
Bus Ridership
Ferry Traffic Vehicular Brenlcdown
Preliminary Capacity Analysis-Ferry at
Fort Pond Bay
Preliminary Capacity Analysis-Ferry at
Lake Montauk
Preliminary Capacity Analysis-Ferry at Napeague
Calculated Queue Lengths at Selected Intersections
Level of Service Using Peak Hour Adjustment due
to Ferry Traffic Surge
Potential Effects of Montauk Ferry on Route 27
Level of Service
1965, 1982, and 1996 ADT Comparisons
Comparison of Summer and "Off Season" Level
of Service on Route 27
Preliminary Capacity Analysis (Saturday)
High Accident Location Summary
Roadway Summary - General Characteristics
and Conditions
Potential Improvements at High Accident Locations
Types of Parking lvlanagement Tactics
Key Capital Improvements
2-2
2-3
2-3
3-2
3-9
4-1
5-2
5-2
6-13
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-16
6-17
8-3
8-5
8-6
8-6
8-12
8-16
12-7
15-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMFrON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town is at a 'crossroads" in terms of developing a solution to its worsening traffic
congestion in the summer season. Currently, traffic volumes on highways such as Route 27 are
at, or near, opacity, often for many hours of the day. Average summer traffic growth increases
on the Town's roadways exceed 8 percent per year, which causes congestion levels to increase
on more roadway segments every year. Typical average annual traffic growth elsewhere on
Long Island is on the order of 1-2 percent per year.
In an attempt to preserve the rural character of the Town, the pubhc mandate is to avoid the
following roadway improvements:
Adding thru travel lanes on existing roads
Constructing 'bypass" roads to congested routes
Installing traffic signals
Encouraging use of existing "bypass" roads
In fids context, the Town must, therefore, look to other modes of travel, particularly rail and
bus, to accommodate summer traffic conditions and thereby attempt to manage the overwhelming
demand on its roadway system. This is consistent with the goals of the lntermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and with other, similar
$-1
areas of the country such as Cape Cod. It will hopefully enable the Town to avoid the
traditional policy of widening roads, only to see the additional capacity exhausted when more
vehicles are attracted to the improved roadways, as has occurred in western Suffolk County,
Nassau County, and in New York City since the 1920's.
Similar to the educational efforts organized in the past for recycling, formal programs should
be established to inform the public, including children, of the benefits of alternative modes of
travel to the automobile.
One of the principal reasons for updaling the Transportation Element of the Town's
Comprehensive Plan is the proposal to establish new ferry service from Montauk to Connecticut.
On the surface this would appear to be a benefit, in that a ferry has the potential for
accommodating trips now made by automobile. However, many of these trips will be "new"
trips generated by casinos in Connecticut as well as recreational facilities in Montauk.
Capacity analyses were conducted for several ferry 'scenarios" of varying intensity and
frequency of service at three potential terminal sites. The results indicate that a new ferry has
the potential to cause a significant degradation in levels of service at roadway intersections
providing access to a new terminal site. In many cases, these levels are already poor. As a
result, it is recommended that this ferry service not be instituted.
$-2
Similarly, it is recommended that potential new development projects in the Town be limited in
size in order not to cause significant degradation in levels of service. Roadway mitigation
measures for developments would nexxl to avoid the aforementioned improvements deemed
undesirable to the public.
KEY SPECIFIC RECOMMF_/qDATIONS
Hi~,hwa_v System (see Pa_~es 8-14 and 8-161
- Work with NYSDOT to update list of Federal-Aid roadways - suggest Annual Average
Daily Traffic (AADT) as one criteria, possibly $,000 vehicles as threshold.
- Improve safety at High Accident Locations - implement improvements on Table 8-5.
Update and review this data on a regular basis.
Improve Route 27 by rehabilitating pavement and installing left turn lanes where
appropriate. Improve Route 114 (alignment and speed zone signing).
Improve veriical clearances beneath LIRR overpass at four potential locations.
Implement safety improvements on other roads (Table 8-4). Construct shoulders where
appropriate, particularly whero significant bicycling activity occurs or is anticipated.
Consider reduction in pavement widths where appropriate to create shoulders. Construct
safety paths/sidewal~ where significant pedesa-ian activity occurs.
Rail (see Pa~,es 4-4 and 4-51
Conduct a major study to address means of improving New York City and Intra-South Fork
se.wico. Improve intermodal coordination (c.g. with bus service, taxi, automobile parking and
drop-off, bicycles and pedestrians).
Develop a long-range Transit Development Plan (TDP) to address utilization of public bus transit
lo address traffic congestion and parking problems.
elements:
0
0
0
0
The plan should evaluate the following
A demand responsive (dial-a-ride) type service
Shuttle bus service from 'fringe' parking areas to beaches and business districts
Shuttle bus service between motels, shopping areas and tourist attractions
Coordination of these services (i.e. transfer points) and with rail service
As an interim, low cost demonstration project, establish summer weekend trial shuttle service
to connect downtown areas, beaches, and shopping areas. Evaluate the success of this operation,
and consider expansion to incorporate rail stations as well.
Work with Suffolk County Transit to optimize muting and scheduling of existing bus routes.
Explore alternatives Io market existing service and potential new routes.
At both the Town's airport in Wainscott, and at the private Montauk Ah'port, implement only
specific, previously identified, improvements which will not encourage gwwth in operations and
S-4
cause negative environmental impacts.
Take steps to implement the bicycle system identified in Exhibit 10-1, after conducting a study
of affected roadways to ascertain whether appropriate pavement widths and signs can be
provided.
Prioritize bicycle education in schools. Provide additional bicycle facilities at beaches, shopping
areas and train stations.
In the business districts of East Hampton Village, Amegansett and Montauk, parking spaces are
very often in short supply in the summer season? The proliferation of vehicles circulating
through these areas in search of parking spaces contributes to traffic congestion. Fringe parking
areas, desirably in existing, under-utilized parking fields should be established. Transportation
from the parking areas to businesses, (e.g. shuttle bus services) should be provided when the lots
Evaluation of the proposed summer weekend shuttle bus service will be instrumental in
de. mining sites for fringe parking areas.
$-5
Other Modes of Travel
Regulate taxi service and fares. Institute rollerblading/skafing safety education measures.
Funding and Implementation
The Town should aggressively pursue its fair share of public funding for the highway and ~sit
projects (including studies) identified in this report, through the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) process. The Town should maintain its level of funding for its own highway
capital and maintenance projects in future years. Public/private partnership techniques, including
Transportation Improvement Districts, should be utilized to supplement public funding sources.
Town governments, Town residents and the business community must work together to develop
the resources to implement the recommendations of this report.
As noted previously, the rail and bus modes of travel offer the best promise for alleviating the
effects of current and future highway congestion in the Town. Strong leadership and cooperation
among Town officials, and agencies such as NYSDOT, Suffolk County Transit and the Long
Island Rail Road, is required to transform the recommended improvements to reality.
$-6
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the mid-1960's, a comprehensive plan was prepared for the Town and Village of East
Hampton, New York. This comprehensive plan, presented in two parts in 1966 and 1967, was
prepared by Edwin S. Voorhees and Son, Inc. The Town of ~.~t Hampton is now embarking
on an up-date to this comprehensive plan, the first since the mid-1960's. This report is an up-
date of the transportation component of the 1966 plan.
The Town has undergone major changes since the mid-1960's. In addition to experiencing a
significant growth in year round population, the Town has seen ever increasing growth in tourist
activity, primarily in the summer season. The population of the Town in the mid-1960's wa~
approximately 10,000 year round residents. That figure grew to slightly above 16,000 residents,
based on the 1990 census. Although there are no hvailable statistics regarding population during
the summer, it is felt that this figure is on the order of four or five times the year round
population.
Prior to performing any activities associated with the development of this report, a Technical
Advisory Committee was formed. The purpose of this Committee was to guide the course of
the project and assure that the type and extent of work tasks undertaken were sufficient to
achieve the goal of developing a comprehensive Transportation Plan. The Committee was
composed of members of the Town of East Hampton Town Board, Town Planning Department,
Town Highway Department, the Village and Planning Boards of the Village of East Hampton,
1-1
the Village of I~ast Hampton Highway Department, Suffolk County Department of Public Works,
the New York State Department of Transportation, the Long Island Rail Road, Concerned
Citizens of Montauk, and the project consultant, L.K. McLean Associates, P.C.
Public input was a key consideration in developing the recommendations for this comprehensive
Transportation Plan. Public participation was solicited during meetings of thc five Citizen
Advisory Committees, each representing a different portion of thc Town of East Hampton. In
addition, a Town Board meeting was held to present the draft report for public comments.
It is no secret to both residents of East Hampton and residents of surrounding towns, that the
key concern related to Townwide transportation is the improvement in mobility during the
summer season. A significant portion of the work undertaken during the course of this study
was related to this key issue.
Several transportation studies have been prepared since 1966 to address the growing congestion
prevalent in l:a~t Hampton and other na~t End Towns. These include the following:
Up-date of Traffic Circulation Plan, Town of East Hampton, prepared by the Suffolk
County Department of Planning (Transportation Division) in April 1983. This report
served as an interim up-date of the traffic circuhtion section of the Town's
Comprehensive Plan. The traffic circulation section of the report encompassed existing
transportation conditions in the Town and Village of last Hampton.
1-2
South Fork Transportation Study (February 1986). This transportation study was
prepared by Vollmer Associates for the New York State Department of Transportation.
The study area for this report was east of the Shinnecock Canal, including portions of
the Town of Southampton, and the Village of Southampton, and the entire Town of l~t
Hampton.
Montauk Arterial Highway Capacity Study prepared by L.K. McLean Associates, P.C.
(1986). This report assessed existing conditions at key intersections in the Montauk area.
It developed recommendations for traffic mitigation measures which could be
implemented during future development occurring in the Montauk area.
· 0
Blueprint for Our Future (Report to Governor Marlo Cuomo) by the East lend Economic
and Environmental Task Force (1993). This study identified recommendations, including
those related to transportation, necessao] to strengthen the P~t End economy while
preserving its environment.
Southampton Tomorrow - Transportation Study (1996). This draft technical report was
prepared for the Town of Southampton. Similar to this report, it is an up-date of the
Wansportation element of the Town's comprehensive plan. The report is still currently
in draft status, pending review and development of final recommendations.
1-3
2.0
OVERVIEW OF CIRCULATION
The Town of l~t Hampton is located at the extreme eastern end of Long Island's South Fork
as depicted in Exhibit 2-1. As can be seen on the location map (Eoxhibit 2-2), the Town is
approximately 22 miles long, and varies in width from less than one mile to almost eight miles
wide. Within the limits of the. Town are two Villages. These are the Village of Fa~t Hampton,
which is entirely surrounded by the Town, and a portion of the Village of Sag Harbor, most of
which actually lies within the Town of Southampton, which borders East Hampton to the west.
As noted previously, the population in the Town rises significantly during the summer tourist
season. Although in the past, the season extended from Memorial Day to Labor Day, recent
years have seen an extension in this peak tourist period. An approximation of monthly traffic
destined for the Town of East Hampton can be made from a continuous traffic count station on
Route 27 in Southampton. Data from this count station is presented in Section 3.1.
In the pe~k tourist season, sightseers and summer residents travel to the Town primarily by
automobile, bus and rail. Some trips are also made by air to the Town airport in Wainscott and
by limited ferry service from New London to Montauk.
The overwhelming majority of automobile traffic travelling into the Town does so on one of
two State roadways. These are Route 27 and Route 114. Route 114 can'ies traffic from the
Village of Sag Harbor and Shelter Island, which are located northwest of the Town. Route 27
2-1
TOWN OF ~T ~JLI~Y)N
L. K. MoLEA~ ASSOCIATES, PC. ~J'~.'l
NEW YORK STATE
/
LONG SLAND
SOUND
Queens
ass u
Istip
Brookhaven Riverheod
Southampton
Island
PROJECT LOCATION-
ATLANTIC OCEAN
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 inch ~ 5280ft.
at the Southampton-East Hampton border carries about 29,000 vehicles on an average summer
day, which is about 2-1/2 times the traffic on Route 114 at the East Hampton-Village of Sag
Harbor line.
In order to obtain an overview of the origins of traffic on Route 27 on a summer Saturday,
license plates of vehicles entering the East Hampton business district were recorded.
Approximately 500 license plates were obtained in each of two periods, on a Saturday morning
and during a Saturday mid-afternoon. The State Department of Motor Vehicles provided names
and addresses of the people to whom the vehicles were registered, for those vehicles registered
in New York State. Exhibit 2-3 is a map summarizing the origin (location of registration) of
the vehicles observed in the study.
Table 2-1 provides a comparison of origin data with similar data collected in 1965. The 1965
data was obtained through motorist interviews. The 1996 data was adjusted to delete non-
matching plate numbers, as well as New York plates held by out-of-state owners, in order to
better estimate specific trip origins. The 1996 results shown in Table 2-1 indicate a substantial
decrease in trips originating within the V~ll~ge of F-,~t Hampton, and increases in the following
trip origins:
o New Jersey
o Westchester Area (Westchester and Rockland Counties)
o 'Other~ Areas (comprised primarily of Upstate New York, New England States and
States south or west of New Jersey)
2-2
TABLE 2-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ORIGIN OF EASTBOUND VEIIICLES - ROUTE 27 (EAST HAMPTON VILLAGE)
AUGUST 17, 1996 AUGUST 17, 1996
TRIP ORIGINS AUGUST 14, 1965 AM COUNT PM COUNT
% % %
SUFFOLK COUNTY 38.4 34.3 31.9
NEW YORK CITY (5 BOROUGHS) 24.3 20.2 21.3
VILLAGE OF EAST HAMPTON 16.3 4.8 4.0
NASSAU COUNTY 13.2 10.3 12.7
NEW JERSEY 3.9 8.0 9.2
WESTCH~TER AREA 2.6 6.5 6.9
OTHER 1.3 15.9 14.0
TOTAL I 100.0 I 100.0 I IO0,.O
,','",,~ .~ ,~,'~ ~,~o o~s DMVSMARY. WK3
NEW JERSEY
STATEN ISLAND
POINTS SOUTH AND WEST
UPSTATE NEW YORK
ROCKLAND
DUTCHESS
WESTCHESTER
NEW YORK Cl'l'~
BRONX
(.~.Kings
Queens
Co.
Nassau
County
Babylon
CONNECTICUT
L
Islip
LEGEND
PERCENTAGE OF CARS 19.~8'~1'1t.19'~1
I I I
A'T LANTIC
TOWN OF EAST HA.MPTON
~RTATION PLAIq u.&'bATI
~T~ OUT-OF-COUNI~Y
m-~Oll-lER NEW ENGLAND STATES
[~ I~a, SSACH USEIII'S
NEW YORK REGISTRATION / OUT-OF-STATE OWNER
'~N~ YORK RE[G~STRATIONS.~.(N.~O_I~-MATCHING)
· .T~ I~I'.A~ STUDY
L. K. ~el.~:.A~'~ ~SSOCLA..Ti~.S, P.C.
ON(; ISLAND SOUND
~khoven Riverheod
Islond
Southompton
)ton
PROJECT LOCAT1ON
CEAN
HAMPTON POST OFFICE BOXES
EAST HAMPTON V1LLAGE
FAST HAMPTON (EAST OF SURVEY LOCATION)
HAMPTON (WEST OF SURVEY LOCATION)
Detailed breakdowns of the 1996 morning and afternoon data appear in Tables 2-2 and 2-3.
Suffolk County Transit operates regularly scheduled bus service to and within the Town of East
Hampton. Regularly scheduled private service is provided primarily by two operators, Hampton
Jitney and Hamptons on my Mind. Both of these operators provide service to Midtown
Manhattan from Montauk.
The Long Island Rail Road operates regularly scheduled service to the Town of l~a~t Hampton
via the Montauk Branch of the railroad. This year round service is supplemented by additional
weekend service during the summer season.
In addition to the aforementioned Town airport in Wainsentt, a private airport which
accommodates small planes is located in Montauk.
The United States Census data from 1990 indicates that approximately 80 percent of Town
residents utilize an automobile, ffuck or van to journey to work. Approximately 10 percent
participate in some sort of carpool on their trip to work, and approximately 6 percent utilize
public transportation, which within the Town is provided solely by bus or rail. Within the
Village of Fzst Hampton, approximately 68 percent of residents utilize an automobile, track, or
van for their journey to work, 11 percent participate in carpools and 8 percent utilize public
transportation.
2-3
TABLE 2-2
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ORIGIN OF VEHICLES - AM COUNT
TOTAL NUMBER OF CARS RECORDED -- 524
TOWN/HAMLETNILLAGFYETC.. [ NUMBER OF CARS
BABYLON 10 1.91
BRONX 4 0.76
BROOKtIAVEN 28 5.34
CONlqECTICIYr 19 3.63
DUTCHESS 2 0.38
EYu.qT HA_MPTON POST Oi'lqCE BOXES 13 2.48
EAST HAMPTON Vn'.T.&GE 12 2.29
EAST HAMPTON (EAST OF SURVEY LOCATION) 48 9.16
EAST HAMi~ON (WEST OF SURVEY LOCATION) 16 3.05
HLrNi'II~OTON 16 3.05
ISLIP 15 2.86
KINCtS COUNTY 8 1.53
MAS S ACHUS~:IT.'I 5 0.95
NASSAU 54 10.31
NEW JERSEY 42 8.02
NEW YORK CiTY 62 11.83
OTI-~R NEW ENGLAND STATES 18 3.44
OUT-OF-COUNTKY I 0.19
POINTS SOUTFI AND WEST 20 3.82
QU~F. NS 29 5.53
RIVERHRAD 1 0.19
ROCKLAND 5 0.95
SMI-i'I-iTOV~XT 7 1.34
SOUT~ON 36 6.87
SOUTHOLD 3 0.57
STATEN ISLAND 3 O.57
UPSTATE HEW YORK 18 3.44
WESTCI:IESTER 29 5.53
TOTAl., I 524 { 100.00
NEW YORK STATE REGISTRATION I OUT-OF-STATE OWNER AND
NEW YORK REGISTRATIONS (NON-MATCHING) EXCLUDED FROM TOTAL
02/11/97 03:54 PM AMCOUNT. WK3
TABLE 2-3
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ORIGIN OF VEHICLES - PM COUNT
TOTAL NUMBER OF CARS RECORDED -- 479
TOWN/HAMLET/V~LLAGF_JETC... [ NUMBER OF CARS ] %
BABYLON 9 1.88
BROlqX 4 0.84
BROOKI-IAVEN 27 5.64
CONNECTICUT 15 3.13
' DUTCHESS 1 0.21
EAST HAMPTON POST OFFICE BOXES 11 2.30
EAST HAMPTON Vn.L&GE 8 1.67
EAST HAMPTON (EAST OF SURVEY LOCATION) 35 7.31
EAST HAMPTON (WEST OF SURVEY LOCATION) 6 1.25
HUNTINGTON 17 3.$5
ISLIP 22 4.59
KllqC~ COUNTY 11 2.30
NASSAU 61 12.73
NEW ~RSEY 44 9.19
NEW YORK CITY 52 10.$6
OTHER NEW ENGLAND STATES 7 1.46
OUT-OF-COUNTRY 3 0.63
POINTS SOUTH A_ND WEST 5 1.04
QU~-I~NS 32 6.68
RIVERHEAD 4 0.84
ROCKLAHD 3 0.63
SlVI[II-ITO'~VN 8 1.67
SO~ON 24 $.01
· SOUTttOLD I 0.21
STATEN ISLAND 3 0.63
UPSTATE NEW YORK 36 7.$2
WESTCHF~qTER ' 30 6.26
~rrAL [ 479 [ ~oo.oo
NEW YORK REG~TION / OUT-OF-STATE OWNER AND
NEW YORK REGISTRATIOI~IS (NON-MATCHING) EXCLUDED FROM TOTAL
02/11/97 03:57 PM PMCOUNT.WK."
3.0 MOBILITY DEFICIENCIES AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Numerous deficiencies in mobility, i.e. the ability of persons and goods to travel within the
Town, were noted during the course of this study~ These deficiencies were identified by field
observations, by analysis of traffic volume data collected during the study, and iluough input
obtained at meetings with the Town's five Citizens Advisory Committees. In addition, input
from the Village of ~a~t Hampton was obtained at meetings of the Technical Advisory
Committee.
3.1 PEAK TOURIST SEASON
As noted in Section 2.0, the length of the traditional summer tourist season has been increasing
over the last several years. The most serious mobility deficiencies occur during this season,
when the tourist-related trips combine with commuter and other trips of year round residents on
the existing highway network.
An attempt was made to graphically compare average monthly traffic volume data. Data from
NYSDOT's 'Continuous' count station on Route 27 near the Shinnecock Canal in Southampton
was obtained. Unfortunately, although data for most months is available in the 1991-1994 time
period, only older data was available for the remaining months. Shown on Exhibit 3-1 is the
adjusted, NYSDOT count data for each month. The following conclusions can be drawn:
4~000
EXHIBIT 3-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) BY MONTH
MOI~rl~
'a'~NYSDOT CONTINUOUS COUNT STATION - NOTE:AVERAGE AIMUSTED DATA FOR 19f1-1994 TIME
PERIOD (SEE SECTION 3.1 OF YEXT)
NYSDOT DATA ADJUSTED BY 1~ SLrFFOLK CO~.//qTY D.P.W. MONTHLy FACTORS FOR EAST END
TOWNS
~ Months ~ Auux. % of Yearly Traffic
~une 1-Sept 1 3 25 36
June l-Oct 1 4 33 44
May 1-Oct 1 5 42 53
Also shown on Exhibit 3-1 is estimated monthly traffic using 1986 Suffolk County Department
of Public Works monthly adjustment factors for the East End Towns. The volumes obtained
using the County factors are slightly higher in the off-season, but markedly lower than those in
July and August. This would seem to indicate a significant increase in traffic in those two
months in the 1986-1994 time period; however, more data is need to coni'u'm this conclusion.
Data was collected between April 11 and April 21, 1997 at three locations along Route 27, in
order to compare "off season" traffic to that in August 1996. The results, as shown on Table
3-1, indicate varying relationships between April and August data. Data collected in Walnscott
and Amagansett indicates that April volumes are between 67 percent and 54 percent of August
volumes, which is consistent with State and County percentages of 56 percent and 76 percent,
respectively, computed from the graph on Exhibit 3-1. Data collected in Montauk, however,
indicates a more dramatic difference between April and August, in that August volumes are three
times those in April.
Peak hour traffic volumes are used to determine level of service, which is an indication of
operating conditions on a highway. As shown on Table 3-1, peak hour volumes in April at the
two westerly Route 27 locations are closer to the August hourly totals than are the corresponding
daily totals. ]For example, April peak hour volumes in Wain~cott are 84 percent of those for the
3-2
TABI ~= 3-1
TOWN OF'EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COMPARISON OF SUMMER AND 'OFF SEASON' LEVEL OF SERVICE
ON ROUTE 27
% TRAFFIC
AUGUST 96 APRIL 97 APRIL/AUGUST
AVERAGE PEAK AVERAGE PEAK
DAILY HOUR DAILY HOUR AVERAGE PEAK
LOCATION TRAFFIC VOLUME TRAFFIC VOLUME DAY HOUR
Wainscott (No. 5) 29,007 2,134 19,315 1,793 67% 84%
Arnagansett (No. 26) 21,772 1,733 11,746 1,124 54% 65%
Montauk (No. 4) 9,075 1,309 3,001 383 33% 29%
NOTES:
1. All figures are two-way traffic (sum of both directions).
RGD:efr
04/30/97
August .peak hour, compared with 67 percent on a dsily basis. In effect, then, the April "off
season" peak hour traffic volumes are within about 15 percent of peak hour volumes in August.
3.2 NY ltO .IJ"~E 27
The most dramatic evidence of mobility deficiencies during the peak tourist season occurs along
NY Route 27 (Montauk Highway). Route 27 is essentially a two lane road for most of its
length. West of the Town, Route 27 continues as two lanes to a point just east of the
Shinnecock Canal where it becomes a four lane limited-access facility. It is the primary route
to the South Fork from points west. Within the Town of ~t Hampton, Route 27 passes
through soveral business districts on its way to Montauk Point, which is located at the eastern
tip of the South Fork. These districts include Wainscott, the ViLlage of East Hampton,
Amagansett, and Montauk. Congestion occurs along Route 27 in these areas as through traffic
competes for available highway capacity with traffic destined for business areas. Particularly
in the Village of East Hampton, traffic is slowed when vehicles enter and exit on-street parking
spaces, sometimes blocking through traffic for a significant period of time. In addition to traffic
congestion from vehicles, a large amount of pedestrians desire to cross Route 27 in thc main
business area near Newtown l~n~e. Significant pedestrian crossing activity occurs in Wainscott,
Amagansett, and Montauk as well.
Speed and delay studies were conducted along Route 27 during summer Saturdays. These
studies were conducted in the business districts of F-~t Hampton, Amagansett and Montauk.
The results are shown on Exhibits 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4. Lowest average speeds were observed in
3-3
the East Hampton business area. In both directions, the lowest average speeds were observed
between Newtown and Egypt Lanes, east of the main business area of the Town. The average
speed in this segment was about 17 miles per hour.
Congestion on Route 27 over the years has led to use of local roads as bypass routes with
increasing frequency. Residents living on these roadways have expressed concern with the
magnitude of txaffic increases, as well as the speeds of vehicles on these roadways. There has
been an expressed desire to limit traffic volumes on these roadways to current levels.
3.3 DOWNTOV~N ARI~,AS
In addition to the congestion experienced on NY Route 27, business districts, particularly East
Hampton, experience shortages of parking. These shortages are most apparent on overcast or
rainy summer days, when tourists' deslinations often change from beach to shopping areas. The
Village experiences virtually full utilization of parking located along Route 27 and in the rear
of stores fronting Route 27. Parking is often available in remotely-loeated parking lots, which
require up to a five minute walk for motorists to reach their ultimate shopping destinalion.
3.4 OTm~ MOBILrI*¥ DEFICIENCHe. q
Key deficiencies in other modes of travel were made evident during the course of this study.
Prominent among these were the following:
3-4
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EXHIBIT 5-2
i,i
i,i
50--'
40.-
301
20,i
101
1.0
I I
1.5 2.0
KEY
EQstbound
Wesfbound
DISTANCE (MILES)
EAST HAMPTON TIME DELAY
(N.Y. 27~
SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 1996
START: 11:13 A.M, END: 12:13 P.I
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TOWN OF' EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EXHIBIT 5-5
50---
40'--
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
,KEY
Easfbound
Wesfbound
DISTANCE (MILES)
AMAGANSETT TIME DELAY
('N.Y. 27)
SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 1996
START: 1:40 P.M. END: 2:44 P.M
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FIRC)OKHAVFN. NFW YF)RK 1171q
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EXHIBIT 5-4
50m
0 ~' "J -- zO
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
KEY
Easfbound
Westbound
DISTANCE (MILES)
MONTAUK TIME DELAY
('N.Y. 27)
SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 1996
START: 1:12 P.M. END: 1:5t
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
R~OCJKHAVFN NFW Y~K 1171Q
Limited public bus service. There is a perceived need among the public for more
frequent service, and extension of service later in the day and on weekends. Improved
coordination of service with rail service and employment hours is also a concern, as well
as extension of summer mutes either to spring and fall months, or to full, year round
Improved Long Island Rail Road service. There is a perceived public need for
improvement in the scheduling of service to New York City, as well as for service among
the South Fork communities.
3.5 SPECIAL EVENTS
Special events which occur in the peak tourist season often exacerbate traffic conditions in the
Town. A review of 1995 Special Events Permits issued by the Town revealed that 12 such
events occurred that year. Some events occurred over two or more days. Permits were issued
between May 1 and October 8 for the following events:
o Fairs, Sales, Shows (e.g. Crafts, Antiques) 5
o Festivals, Celebrations, Picnics, Regattas 4
o Fireworks 3
Traffic control (vehicular and pedestrian) in the immediate vicinity of these events often becomes
challenging, as motorists trying to access the event search for a parking space, then attempt to
cross congested roadways (such as Route 27) to attend the event. Traffic leaving fireworks
events is particularly difficult to manage, because most persons attending the event wish to
depart immediately after it concludes.
3-5
3.6 PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS
Public input on perceived transportation problems and solutions was sought at meetings with the
five Citizens Advisory Committees within the Town:
o Montauk
o Wainscott
o Springs
o Village of Sag Harbor
o Amagansett
A brief presentation, consisting of the purpose of the Transportation Plan Up-Date, observed
safety problems at locations with a significant numbe~ of traffic accidents, and trends in traffic
volumes, was made before each Committee. The presentation followed the outline in Appendix
A. Following the presentation, Committee input on problems and solutions was solicited.
Similar input regarding transpomtion needs and concerns in the Village of ]~t Hampton was
obtained from Village representatives at the Technical Advisory Committee meetings. A
summary of transportation needs and concerns expressed by each group appears in Appendix A,
along with a summary of each meeting.
It quicldy became apparent that a primary concern of Town residents is the need to preserve the
rural nature of East Hampton, and that future transportation improvements must fit within this
framework. As a result, it was consistently stated that certain improvements are unacceptable,
3-6
or highly undesirable.
O
O
O
0
These include:
New highway construction to alleviate traffic congestion on Route 27.
Major roadway widenings, such as the addition of through travel lanes on existing
roadways. This would exclude minor widenings for safety improvements, such as
construction of left turn lanes at specific intersections.
Traffic increases on existing local ~bypass~ mutes.
Installation of new traffic signals
Based on these criteria, it is apparent that there is minimal potenlJal for the existing highway
system to accommodate existing h-affic, let alone future Uaffic generated by natural growth and
new private developments. If the Town is to n _dequately cope with existing congestion on
roadways such as Route 27, greater reliance must be placed on other modes of transportation,
particularly buses and rail.
3.7 FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMF~NT
Future growth and development within the Town will be subject to zoning regulations, which
in turn conform with the Town's Land Use Plan. The Town's Planning Department is currently
updating the Land Use Plan, which is another of the components of the Town's Comprehensive
Plan. The Land Use Plan was last updated in 1984. It can be expected that the revised I ~d
Use Plan would permit a more limited ultimate development of vacant land within the Town than
is currently possible.
3-'/
In addition to the need for preservation of open space for environmental reasons, and the desire
to limit population densities to those consistent with rural areas, the public has expressed concern
over congestion on the Town's roadway system in the peak tourist season. Exhibit 8-11 in
Section 8.3 shows existing summer 'Levels of Service* on major roadways in the Town. Level
of Service is a measure of traffic congestion on a roadway or at an intersection, with 'A' being
the best level, 'E' being equal to the roadway's capacity and 'F* being failure, or conditions
exceeding capacity. Conditions yielding Level of Service 'C' are typically used in designing
a rural roadway. It can be seen from Exhibit 8-11 that most roadways currently operate at Level
of Service 'C' or worse in the peak season. The analysis did not examine intersections on these
roadways, which typically operate at worse levels of service than roadway segments, as
conflicting through and cross-street traffic compete for the same roadway "space".
Consequently, there is little room to accommodate future developments on the Town's existing
roadway system, particularly when considering that the public desires that through lanes not be
added to existing roads, traffic on bypass routes not be increased, and new traffic signals not be
installed. It is recognized that a 'zero growth* condition is neither practical nor desirable;
however, there is an expressed desire to limit larger developments within the Town, if they will
generate a significant amount of traffic, and thereby 'use up' a good portion of the remaining
capacity of the roadway system.
Table 3-2 is an illustration of potential traffic conditions at three locations on Route 27 for future
years. In order to estimate future traffic volumes, a conservative growth factor of 5 percent
growth per year was u 'txlized. It can be seen that, even with 5 percent growth, two locations will
reach Level of Service F by the Year 2004.
3.8 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
During the course of the development of this report, many ideas were presented as means of
alleviating traffic congestion in the Town during the peak tourist season. Many of these were
aimed at reducing the reliance on the automobile as the principal means of travel within the
Town. Some of these potential solutions to improve mobility within the Town during the peak
tourist season are as follows:
o Improved Bus Service: There is a perceived need for inslitution of frequent bus service,
particularly within the Village of F.~si Hampton. This bus service could include a
'shuttle' type service linking existing Suffolk County Transit routes with popular tourist
destinations such as business districts and beaches. The bus service could also interface
with rail service at existing Long Island Rail Road Stations.
Improved Rail Service: There is a need to up-grade existing Long Island Rail Road
service to New York City during peak times of travel, i.e. eastbound on Friday
afternoons and Saturday mornings, and westbound on Sundays. The railroad is also seen
as having potential for moving tourist related traffic during the peak season, both within
the Town and along the entire South Fork. The concept of providing more frequent
service, i.e. a "shuttle" type operation during the summer on the South Fork, is one that
may help reduce reliance on automobiles. This "shuttle" type of service could employ
3-9
TABLE 3-2
TOWN OF 'EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN'
FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH
POTENTIAL TRAFFIC GROWTH ALONG
NYS ROUTE 27, MONTAUK HIGHWAY
COUNT STATION NO. 5 COUNT STATION NO. 26 COUNT STATION NO. 38
APPXo ~ PERCENTAGE PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR I PEAK HOUR
· YEAR I GROWTH * VOLUME I-O.S. VOLUMEI L.O.S. VOLUME I-O.S.
1996 EXISTING 2,134 E- 1,733 E 1,309 D
2002 30% 2,774 F 2,252 E- 1,702 E
2004 40% 2,988 F 2,426 F 1,834 E
2006 50% 3,201 F 2,600 F 1,936 E
2008 60% 3,414 F 2,773 F 2,095 E-
2010 70% 3,628 F 2,946 F 2,226 E -
* USING 5% GROWTH RATE PERYEAR.
RGD:efr
04/30/97
the *light rail' type of vehicles, which could also accommodate bicycles.
Highway Improvements: While not precluded, the feeling of various communities within
the Town is that existing highway facilities must not be widened, i.e. additional lanes
should not be constructed. The addition of turning lanes at intersections to increase
capacity and safety at spot locations, would not be considered as additional lanes in this
context. Construction of turning lanes where appropriate should be implemented.
Other Safety related improvements, such as clearing to improve sight distance and minor
alignment improvements, are desirable, but are not expected to increase capacity.
3.9 EXPEI~W. NCE IN OTHER LOCALES
During the course of the study, the Technical Advisory Committee solicited input from two
communities which experience many similarities to conditions occurring in East Hampton.
These include traffic congestion in peak tourist season, geographic constraints to improvement
of transportation systems, and environmental and community sensitivity. Two such similar
communities are Cap~ Cod and the Florida Keys. Both of thc regions were contacted in order
to determine if recent studies had been concluded and means of improving mobility had been
identified.
The Cape Cod Commission is in the process of developing a long range transportation plan for
the Cape Cod region. While Cape Cod experiences traffic congestion not unlike that of East
3-10
Hampton, Cape Cod is also sensitive to the preservation of its natural environment.
Development of alternate modes of iranspertation which would reduce dependence on
automobiles is one of the three regional goals for Cape Cod's long range transportation plan.
Key projects and programs anticiPated to be developed as part of the long range plan include the
following:
o Improved intennodal connections and a multi-modal transportation center.
o Additional seasonal and year-round bus service.
o Additional park and ride Iota.
o Enhanced air service.
o Improved passenger rail service.
o Comprehensive bicycle path network and related amenities.
o Improved use of water for transportation.
o Travel demand management/systems management strategies.
o Improved pedestrian amenities.
o Key intersection and roadway improvement projects.
I~Iost of the above no~i measures have application in the Town of l~a~t Hampton.
Contact was made with the Florida Department of Transportation regarding conditions in the
Florida Keys. Although Key West experiences circulation problems similar to those in the Town
of gant Hampton, there is a very significant reliance on bicycles to travel on the Island, both by
visitors and commuters. Because of a heavy reliance on bicycle travel in an area which also
3-11
experiences heavy automobile traffic, there is a significant traffic accident problem for bicyclists,
with the result that this location has one of the highest bicyclist accident rate in:the Country.
Over 20 percent of workers in the City of Key West travel to work by either bicycle or foot.
The City is currently exploring means of reducing the number of travel lanes available on the
Island in order to establish formal bicycle lanes along these roadways. Although the surge in
population in Key West is similar to that in East Hampton (year round population of 30,000
approaches 90,000 in peak season), the Island is only 1-1/2 miles by 3 miles in size. The
resulting population density is greater than that in l~st Hampton, and as a result the City of Key
West would not be an appropriate 'role model' for transportation improvements in East
Hampton.
3-12
4.0 RAIL TRANSPORTATION
4.1 ExI.qTING SERVICE AND RIDERSHIP
Them are three railroad stations serving the Town of l~z~t Hampton on the Long Island Rail
Road's Montauk Branch. The.se are located in l~t Hampton (Village of F~t Hampton),
Amagansett, and Montauk. Service on the Long Island Rail Road is summarized in Table 4-1.
As can be seen from the Table, summer service is much more extensive than regular service
during the remainder of the year. Summer service is punctuated by additional trains, added
primarily on Friday afternoons and evenings in the eastbound dffection, and on Sundays and
holidays in the westbound direction. Exclusive of this additional service, however, intervals
between trains running to Montauk are long, typically ranging from 2 to 10 hours depending on
time of day. Westbound morning service, with the exception of Mondays, is limited to
departures at 5:38 and 11:25 AM.
Shown on Exhibit 4-1 are the locations of the stations, and passenger counts in thc eastbound
and westbound directions on a summer weekend. Also indicated on the Exhibit are passenger
counts for peak trains during these periods. As can be seen from the Exhibit, passenger volume
at the ~,t Hampton station is the highest of the three locations. Peak passenger volumes at
Amagansett and Montauk are similar, with the exception of the eastbound peak train volume at
Amagansett. East Hampton has by far the highest number of available parking spaces.
4-1
TABLE 4-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD SERVICE TO MONTAUK
SUMMER
REGULARLY
SCHEDULED ADDITIONAL
Weekdays WB 5
EB 5
Weekends W~ 4
EB 5
I - Daily to and from East Hampton; 1 - Monday AM
I - Daily to and from East Hampton; 4 - Friday PM; 1 - Thursday PM
3 - Sundays/Hoidays, PM
REMAINDER OF YEAR
REGULARLY
SCHEDULED
ADDITIONAL
Weekdays WB 4
EB. 5
Weekends WB 4
EB 5
1 - Daily to and from East Hampton
1 - Daily to and from East Hampton; 1 - Friday PM
GRAPHIC SCALE
EAST
HAMPTC
STATION
DRA]
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
AIRPORTS & RAH.ROAD STATIONS
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~,b,~,o.
February 1997 LK.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16 4--
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
AIRPORT
RAILR0.M) STATION
Fares on the LIRR range from $10.25 one-way in the off peak period to $15.25 during peak
period, for travel from any of the three stations to Zone No. 1 which includes Brooklyn and
Penn Station in New York. When special parlor cars are available, typically in the eastbound
direction on Friday afternoons and westbound on Monday mornings, the LIRR charges an
additional $17.50 fare for this service. Scheduled travel times from Penn Station to Montauk
are typically in the 3 to 3-1/2 hour range. The ~cannon-ballH train which runs on summer
Thursdays and Fridays, makes this trip in a scheduled 2 hours and 37 minutes.
The LIRR will accommodate bicycles only on certain trains. The published schedule indicates
on which trains bicycles can be accommodated. The Rail Road requires a Cyc~n-Ride Permit
in order to bring bicycles on the trains.
,I.2 CAPITAL PRO~ECTS
The LIRR is currently preparing to reconstruct platforms at the three railroad stations. This
reconslruction will meet the latest Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and will
accommodate new bi-level coaches. Bicycle racks will be installed in conjunction with this
work. Limited dual mode service will be instituted as we]]. The dual mode locomotives will
be able to run on both the non-eleetrified tracks within the Town, and on electrified segments
of the LIRR, which exist west of Babylon on the Montauk Branch, and west of Farmingdale on
the Main Line, upon which some Montauk Branch trains travel. This would eliminate the need
for passengers to change lrains at Jamaica. Implementation of new diesel fleet service on the
Montauk Branch is scheduled for 1998.
4-2
4.3 l~.nS AND DEFICIENCIES
At the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings, public input consistently focused on the following
concerns regarding rail service in the Town:
o Improvement is needed in the condition, frequency and scheduling of current LIRR
service to New York City. Although the LIRR is instituting dual mode service in 1998,
it appears that only one such train will be initially assigned to the Montauk Branch.
Current plans, though, are to modernize the remaining aging railroad fleet. Judging by
current passenger loads for weekend summer service, particularly on the "cannon ball"
Friday afternoon train, there appears to be a need to expand the service. Similarly, the
current frequency of weekday train service (5-6 trains per day) does not encourage use
of the LIRR for travel from l~t Hampton to New York City, often resulting in low
utilization of the existing service capacity. In fact, private bus service operators
offering service to New York City have, to a certain extent, been successful in
attracting ridersdue to frequent departures and excellent riding conditions.
It is understood that the feasibility of providing additional weekday service to New York
City can be limited by track capacity in the East River Tunnel, the existence of an
unsignalized (for two directional travel) single track east of Sayville, and the availability
of locomotives and cars.
Improvement is needed in intra-South Fork service. This improvement is particularly
desirable because the location of existing stations near tourist areas is conducive to
4-3
O
attracting automobile trips to rail. Similar to the identified limits on providing long-
distance service to New York City, consU'aints on improving service within thc South
Fork include thc existing unsignaiized single track, availability of rolling stock and
supporting infrastructure (e.g. parking facilities).
Access to the railroad for bicyclists should be more favorable. The LIRR is currently
revising its existing Bicycle Policy, and will soon be soliciting input from Planning
Departments and user groups.
4.4 RECOlVllVlF_aND ATIONS
The following actions are recommended:
o Conduct a major study of the role of the LIRR in providing rail service in I~t Hampton
Town, and within the South Fork as well. This study should address the following
issues:
o Means of improving servic~ to New York City ~ The study should thoroughly
analyze previously identified constraints to improving this service. For example,
lack of F~t River track capacity may not be a limitation, as most Montauk Branch
trains now terminate at Babylon, where frequent service to Penn Station and
Brooklyn emanates. The LIRR is also pursing direct, additionai access to Grand
Central Station within the next 15 years. The constraint of an unsignaiized single
track can be addressed through construction of sidings and implementation of
sign:~li=ation, as has been done on the busy Main Line between Farmingdale and
4-4
Ronkonlmma. More than one "dual mode' train should be assigned to the
Montauk Branch.
O
Improvement in Intra-South Fork Service - The study should address the feasibility
of providing 'shuttle-type' service between South Fork stations, particularly in
the summer tourist ~a~on. Since the IJRR parallels Route 27, with existing
stations in areas of shopping and tourist interest, the potential exists to remove
automobile trips from the roadway. Frequent Intra-South Fork service could be
interspersed with City service, or could replace it by means of a transfer point,
possibly in Southampton. In this way, 'light-rail' type of vehicles, perhaps with
local character, could be utilized. Single track limitations could be addressed as
noted for New York City service.
Improve intermodal coordination. Any future plmming LIRR stations must
address existing and potential service from other modes of travel, as described in
the railroad's station Design Guideline including:
o Bus (public and private), including "shuttle" service linking rail stations
and business districts.
o Taxi
o Automob'fle (parking and drop-of0
o Bicycle
o Pedestrian
4-5
Layout of access to the station utilizing each of these modes is critical, and will
encourage transfers of trips to the rail system. Establishment of amenities for
riders, such as waiting areas, restrooms, and newspaper and snack fac'flifies should
be a priority. The revised LIRR Bicycle Policy should incorporate means to
facilitate transportation of bicycles on rail cars.
Some of the above issues can be handled on a short-term basis independent of completion of a
comprehensive study. These would include scheduling improvements, possibly beginning in
1998 as bi-level coaches are placed in operation. The LIRR has expressed a willingness to work
with the Town and the Village of East Hampton regarding scheduling; this opportunity should
be pursued.
4-6
5.0
BUS TRANSPORTATION
Bus transportation in Fast Hampton Town is provided primarily by Suffolk County Transit,
which was established in 1980, and private operators. The private bus service runs primarily
from' Montauk to New York City. The Suffolk County Transit bus routes are run and
maintained by private contractors. These mutes are illustrated in Exhibit 5-1.
5.1
RIDERSIilP CHARACTERISTICS
Based on surveys conducted in 1988, 1992 and 1996 by Suffolk County Transit, on a County-
wide basis approximately 80 percent of bus passengers do not own cars. Most of the riders are
in a lower economic status and their primary purpose in riding the bus is to take it to work.
Some riders use the buses to get to and from school, and some use the buses to get to shopping
areas.
5.2 FUNDING
The current bus fare is $1.50 one-way. Senior citizen's fares are $0.50, and transfers are $0.25
additional. The last fare increase was in 1991. The County typically recovers only 25 percent
of the cost of operating routes through the collection of bus fares. The remainder of operating
costs comes from County funds, State operating assistance funds, and Federal operating
assistance funds. Federal assistance only amounts for about 5 percent of the cost.
5-1
~J
~J
GRAPHIC SCALE
(
:j
DRA]
ii
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
................ PRIVATE BUS
PUBLIC BUS
{SUFFOLK COI:NT'~ TRANSIT)
AREA WITHI'N $ MIN. WALK
TO PUBLIC BUS
5.3
BUS RO~T~S AND RIDERS~
Table 5-1 summarizes thc bus routes and frequencies within the Town. One of the four Suffolk
County bus routes operates only in the summer season. Table 5-2 summarizes the ridership on
these four mutes during 1995. As can be seen from the Table, the S-92 route, which runs from
Greenport to gaat Hampton via Riverhead, has the highest ridership. There is no breakdown,
however, for the ridership which exists on portions of the route outside the Town of l:a~t
Hampton. The 10-B route which runs from Fast Hampton Village to Three Mile Harbor and
Springs, appears to have the highest ridership of the other three routes.
The Hampton Jitney and Hamptons On My-Mind bus service accommodate longer trips,
providing service from Montauk to Manhattan.
The Hampton Jitncy's regularly-scheduled service to Manhattan via Southampton carries
significant ridership in the summer tourist season. About 60 percent of the Jitney's yearly
passenger volume occurs in the May 15-September 15 period. Up to 2,000 passengers per day
can be carried on a summer weekend, with approximately 40 percent of these riders travelling
to or from the Town of l~t Hampton. Ridership has been increasing yearly.
The Town of N~st Hampton provides a valuable service for Senior Citizens and handicapped and
disabled persons. For a $0.25 one-way fare, transportation is avaihble to the riders.
5-2
5.4 BUS SERVICE
Suffolk County Transit bus service is available on weekdays and Saturdays, with the exception
of most holidays. Service generally operates from early morning to evening. On the 10B and
S-92 mutes, service frequencies are in the one to two hour range. On the summer-only route
(S-94), service headways are in the two to three hour range. The County has recently extended
service on the 10-C Route to the entire year.
Hampton Jitney provides service from Montauk to Manhattan, with a frequency of approximately
one hour, during the summer season. There are additional eastbound buses on Fridays, and
westbound buses on Sundays and Mondays. In the off season, service is at hourly intervals
during peak periods of the day. Service intervals increase to about two hours during off-peak
times.
The litney will stop at Exit 60 of the Long Island Expressway by advance reservation. A taxi
will meet the bus to provide service to the LIRR's Ronkonkoma Station or to Long Island
MacArthur Airport, both of which are nearby.
Harnptons On My Mind provides bus service from Montauk to Manhattan, running four to five
buses daily on a typical weekday in the summer. An additional four buses are added .on peak
days (e.g. eastbound between Thursday and Saturday and westbound on Sunday). In the off-
season, service is curtailed to Fridays and Sundays only, essentially serving just weekend
travelers.
5-3
TABLE 5-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
BUS ROUTES AND FREQUENCIES
S.C. BUS ROUTE # I GENERAL ROUTE [ FREQUENCY/REMARKS
10B East Hampton Village to Tht~ Mile Harbor and Springs Ev~j 2 hfs (6:50am-6:20pm)
(via CR 40 and CR 41) and onto Bridg~h~mpton R.R. Station ~ and Westlxmnd
10C Esst Hampton Village to Mo~t=-~ Vilhge Eve~ 3 lus (6:50am-7:50pm)
(via NYS 27, CR 49, and CR 77) ~ and We~boond
S-92 Greenport to East Hampton via Riverhead Eastbound: every 1-2 hfs (9:15am- 6:25pm)
(I'TYS 114 from Sag Harbor to East Hampton) Westbound: every 1-2 hfs (7.'40am-5:40pm)
Montauk to Southampton Every 2-3 hfs Monday-Satm'day only (Summer only)
S-94 (via NYS 27) (S:20am-6:25pm)
Eastbound and We~bound
PRIVATE BUS LINES ] GENERAL ROUTE [ FREQUENCY/REMARKS
HL~mpton litney Montauk to Manhattan Eastbound and Westbound every hour (5:00nm-7:45pm)
(via NYS 27 in Southampton and East Hampton Towns)
Eastbound: 4 Buses daily increasing to S Crhu~s-Sat)
Montauk to Manhattan departures every 1-3 hrs (8:00am.7:lSpm)
Hamptons on my Mind (via NYS 27 in Southampton and East Hampton Towns)
Westbound: $ Buses daily; 4 additional on Sunday
depan'ua~ every 1-1/2-3 hrs (6:00am-3:0Opm)
nR/n4/"/ o :45 AM BUSSCHED.VVK4
TABLE 5-2
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
RIDERSHIP ON SUFFOLK TRANSIT ROUTES (1995)
ROUTE NO.: S92 1 OB 10C
AREAS SERVED: Greenport to East Hampton Bridgehampton to Springs East Hampton Village -
Village via RIverhead via East Hampton Village Montauk
MONTHS
January 13,182 1,357
Februa~ 11,915 1,274
March 15,°53 1,594
April 15,185 1,621
May 16,285 1,629
June 17,699 1,761 42
July 17,814 1,851 99
August 20,705 2,150 1,40
September 16,802 1,706 13
October 16,310 1,481 ·
November 14,743 1,342
December 13,347 1,224
TOTAL: 189~040 18~990 2~95
NOTES:
1. For Route S94 (Summer Only) - Southampton to Montauk via Route 27, total July and August ridership
was 2,247. Total for entire summer is unavailable.
2. 10C route was Summer Only in 1995.
3. Source: Suffolk County Transit.
N~.~.I~S
Suffolk Transit has attempted to meet at least some of the mobility needs of Fast Hampton
residents by providing limited fixed route bus service as described in the preceding section. In
fact, with the recent introduction of year-round service on Route 10C, residents of Montauk now
have the availability of public transit service to East Hampton and points further west on a
permanent, 12 months a year basis. Nonetheless, it is obvious from the input obtained from the
various Citizens Adviso~ Committees, elected officials, and Planning Department staff that
there remains a need for better public transportation throughout the Town. These needs, while
prevalent during the peak summer tourist season, are manifested on a year-round basis.
The primary users of the existing Suffolk Transit buses are captive riders, those who have no
alternative means of transportation. The preliminary ridership statistics for the Route 10C
service are an indication that there is a latent demand for bus service which is not being met,
and there are still significant portions of the Town which are not being served at all by the
existing bus system. Therefore, one of the basic needs which should be addressed is that of
providing reasonable public transit options for all Town residents who do not have the
availability of an automobile to meet their routine daily mobility requirements.
There is also an apparent need for improved bus service to help alleviate the severe traffic
congestion problems which exist throughout the Town during the peak summer months. As
indicated in Section 8 of this report, the growth rate of vehicular traffic on Town roads over the
past 30 years has far outpaeed the average growth rate for most of Suffolk County and the Long
5-4
Island region in general. In fact, Waffle volumes have now reached a level which the existing
highway network cannot accommodate. Inasmuch as there is a strong community preference to
maintain the rural character of the Town and general opposition to any major roadway widening
and/or new highway construction, thc only viable solution to thc congestion problem is the
development of a well-integrated public transportation system which provides an acceptable
alternative to the automobile for local trips.
Town and Village officials have also identified a significant problem involving parking
deficiencies at most public beaches and in the various downtown business districts, particularly
within the Village of l~,t Hampton. This restricts the ability of residents and tourists to avail
themselves of these beach facilities and results in a negative impact on the local economy.
Unfortunately, there is limited opportunity to provide additional parking in close proximity to
those locations where it is most needed. There is a need, therefore, to provide an alternate
means of transpoxtation to provide reasonable access to these activity centers.
5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Town of ~t Hampton must s~ck to develop an integrated
bus system which is oriented towards the following objectives:
o Improved mobility for all Town residents and tourists
o Reduced congestion during the summer tourist season
o Reduced demand for parking in downtown areas and at public beaches
5-5
Due to the relatively low population density and wide geographic expanse of the Town, it is
unrealistic to expect that these objectives can be satisfactorily achieved by expansion of the
County's fixed route bus service. Rather, the Town must seek to develop a multi-faceted transit
system which can provide reliable, comfortable and convenient service at a reasonable cost. In
order to address the needs outlined in the previous section, the transit system should incorporate
the following elements:
o Demand responsive (dial-a-ride) service designed to serve potential transit users
whose origin and/or destination points are not within a reasonable walking distance of
the County's fixed routes. Initially, the focus of this type of service should be directed
toward expansion of the Town's existing senior citizen transportation program. In the
long term, the service may be made available to the general population of the Town, if
it is determined to be economically feasible.
O
Shuttle bus service to public beach facilities and downtown shopping districts from
satellite parking sites. These parking sites would have to be located within a reasonable
distance of the final destination points to minimize lrip lengths and facilitate frequent
service. This can be accomplished by utilizing available parking facilities belonging to
the Town or other public/quasi-public agencies such as schools, fire houses, libraries, etc.
Feeder/distributor buses to transport passengers to and from the railroad stations.
This type of service would be particularly beneficial on weekends during the summer
tourist season.
5-6
o
Shuttle buses to transport guests from motels/hotels to restaurants, shopping areas,
tourist attractions, and transfer points where they can link up with other modes of
transportation (i.e. Suffolk Transit mutes, LIRR).
Toward this end, it is recommended that the Town undertake a more detailed
marketing/feasbility study to assist in the formulation of a townwide Transit
Development Program (TDP) which will:
Identify potential transit users and the types of service that will be most effective in
meeting their specific needs.
Determine the type, size and number of vehicles that will be needed for each type of
recommended service.
Estimate the annual operating costs associated with each service element and evaluate
operating alternatives (i.e. Town operated vs. privately operated bus service).
Identify potential revenue and funding ~ources, including the formation of
Transportation Improvement District (TID's) whereby businesses which directly
benefit from the transit services help to subsidize them through the property tax
baze.
$-7
Develop recommendations for integrating all new transit services with the existing
fixed route bus service and LIRR train service to establish a townwide public
transportation network which will provide people with a viable alternative to automobile
travel.
In the short term, it is recommended that the Town not walt for completion of a TDP in order
to address some of the immediate traffic congestion and parking problems. As an iterim
measure, it is suggested that the Town undertake a demonstration project involving shuttle
service to either (or both) of the Town beaches in Amagansett and the Village of P~t Hampton
Business Dishict, u~ili=ing the Town Hall parking lot as a centralized pick-up point. By using
a private operator, the high start-up costs usually associated with new bus service can be avoided
and the operation could be started by the summer season. The Town could then monitor usage
and survey passengers to obtain input as to the viability of permanent service, not only in this
area, but in other parts of the Town as well. Another potential summer shuttle route is
reinstitution of the Montauk-to-Montauk Point service previously provided by Suffolk County
Transit.
Also in the short term, the Town should work with Suffolk County transit to optimize use of the
existing bus system. This should include coordination with other modes of travel such as rail,
schedule and route revisions, and the means to publicize system routes and schedules.
5-8
6.0 FERIH r-S
There is currently limited existing ferry service to the Town. Cross-Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
has proposed eslablishment of a new ferry service to the Montauk area from New London,
Connecticut. This would supplement Cross-Sound's existing Orient-New London route
emanating from the North Fork of Long Island. Cross-Sound currently operates both passenger-
only, and vehicular and passenger service. The passenger-only service is accommodated by
means of six round trips, utilizing high speed vessels with a capacity of 350 people. This
service serves as a link in transporting patrons to existing casinos in Connecticut. In addition,
a passenger-only service has been proposed from the Village of Sag Harbor, part of which lies
in the Town, to New York City.
The Town, cognizant of a threat of significant increases in traffic and parking, as experienced
in the Town of Southold as a result of implementation of high-speed, casino-related service, in
1995 adopted a moratorium on institution of new ferry service pending completion of this
revision to the Transportation Element of its Comprehensive Plan. This section identifies
specific and potential transportation-related impacts of various "scenarios', or v~ous intensities,
of a proposed ferry service to New England. Other potential, social, economic and
environmental effects of a new ferry route are identified but their quantification is beyond the
scope of this report.
6.1 EXISTING SERVICE
The Viking Ferry Lines operates a passenger-only ferry service to two destinations from
6-1
Moniauk during ~he summer season. A tinily ferry to Block Island, Rhode Island, leaves
Montauk in the morning, and returns from Block Island in the late afternoon. One-way wavel
time is one hour and 45 minutes. Service to New London, Connecticut is typically provided
only on Fridays and Sundays. Two trips per day leave Montauk, in the early morning and
evening. The scheduled duration for the trip to New London is I hour and 45 minutes.
A significant number of passengers vtilize the ferry service to Montauk on Friday nights, and
to New London on Sunday evenings. It appears that a good portion of these passengers remain
in the Montauk area for the weekend.
A "cruise' type of service emanates from the Village of Sag Harbor once a day. The vessel
stops at the Village of Greenport before proceeding up the Connecticut River.
6.2 POTENTIAL SERVICE
Potential ferry service to the Town may involve one or more of the following elements:
o Passenger and vehicular service from New York City to the Town
o Passenger and vehicular service from New England to the Town.
In the Fall of 1996, a private company proposed the establishment of passengers-only weekend
service from New York City to Sag Harbor. Two vessels, reportedly capable of making the
trips in 2-3/4 hours, could accommodate up to 350 passengers. The company, New York Fast
6-2
Fen'y, suggested that capacity could be limited to 200 passengers, and that a significant number
of riders could walk to their destinations in the Village. Public reaction to the passenger ferry
proposal has been mixed; Vills~ve residents are generally opposed to a ferry service which would
transport vehicles. To date, an impact study for the ferry service has not been fried with the
Village.
The concept of new ferry service to New England from Montauk has been proposed by Cross
Sound Ferry, which currently operates existing service to New London from Orient Point. The
Pequot lydian Iribe, which operates the Foxwood Casino in Connecticut, has announced the
formation of a shipbuilding subsidia~, based in New London, to build ferry ve.ssels. Initially,
the boats would bring casino patrons across the Long Island Sound. The vessels reportedly
could bold up to 330 passengers at speeds up to 47 knots. A 3S-knot average speed journey
from Montauk to New London would ~,e about 35 minutes. The Sea let, a high speed
passenger ferry operated between Orient Point and New London in addition to numerous
vehicular ferries on that route, cruises at about 30 knots.
It should also be noted that potential improvements to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor could foster
new travel to Mnntauk via a rail-to-ferry connection at New London.
6.3
6.3.1
POTENTIAL SERVICE TO MONTAUK
Potential Sites and Roadway Access
6-3
GRAPHIC SCALE
MAp AS COMPILED FROM AMERICAN
OUADEANCLES F~LES OF UA¥ 28. 1996, I
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
FERRY SERVICE TO MONTAUK
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~,~,t,o.[!
March 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj. No. :30-000-16 6-
LAKE
MONTAUK~
· FOR, PONL, ~ ~
~A~-~' /~ ~/i' "\
The three' most likely sites for a ferry terr~inal in the Montauk/Napeague area are:
o Fort Pond Bay
o Lake Montauk
o Napeague State Park
These sites are depicted on Exhibit 6-1.
Fort Pond Bay is located north of the Montauk business district and the Montauk Station of the
LIRR. Prior to World War II, a ferry service to Connecticut existed from Fort Pond Bay. Fort
Pond Bay lost much of its maritime attractiveness when an inlet was dredged to Lake Montauk,
establishing the only protected harbor in the area.
Roadway access to Fort Pond Bay would be primarily served by Edgemere Street (CR 49), a
north-south route that connects with the existing traffic circle in the Montauk Business District.
An alternative route would follow Edgemere Street, Industrial Road, and Second House Road to
Route 27, west of the Montauk Business District. That route has alignment concerns, and passes
through residential areas.
Development of the Lake Montauk site has been occurring over the last ten years. The Montauk
Yacht Club and Gosman's Dock are two establishments which attract significant numbers of
patrons in the summer season. The Viking Ferry's daily summer service to Block Island and
weekend service to New London departs from Lake Montauk. The popularity of this service
frequency results in overflow parking spilling over from the site onto adjacent properties.
6-4
Vehicular access to Lake Montauk is provided by Edgemere Street/Flamingo Avenue (CR 49),
with access routes to Route 27 as described for the Fort Pond Bay site. An alternative to this
access is to utilize West Lake Drive (CR 77) to Route 27, east of the Montank Business District.
The Napeague site is located on Napeague Bay, in Napeague State Park. Access to the site
would utilize either Cranberry Hole Road or Napeague Meadow Road. While the latter is in
better condition, it is likely that a substantial majority of ferry traffic would utilize Cranberry
Hole Road, due to its nearly southwesterly orientation, to access Route 27.
6.3.2 Potential Impacts of New Ferry Service to Montauk - General
Regardless of the specific site selected for a ferry terminal in the MontaukJNapeague area,
several common issues will need to be addressed. These include the following:
6.3.2.1Regniatory Approval of New Ferry Route
With the abolishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission, regulatory jurisdiction over
interstate ferry routes has been assumed by the Surface Transportation Board of the United States
Depax'unent of Transportation. However, the USDOT has historically not exercised its
jurisdiction with the exception of safety matters. Review of matters related to boating safety are
handled by the Coast Guard, a subsidiary of the USDOT.
The following paragraphs, prepared by NYSDOT's Passenger Transportation Division,
summarize its opiaion on permits and approvals needed ~ establish a private interstate ferry
service:
6-5
The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC Subsection 1451 et. seq.) covers the
coastal waters and adjacent shore areas of Long Island, New York City, the
Great I *ire. s and the Hudson River North to Troy. I~ke Champlain is not subject
to the act.
If a project within these areas requires any federal approval or federal
funding, then the New York Secretary of State is responsible for making a
certification that the action is consistent with the State's approved Coastal
Zone Management Plan. If no federal approval or funding is required, but a
state approval or funding is involved, and the action is subject to SEQRA, then
thc applicable state a~ency m~k~s thc consistency certification to the Secretary
of State. As part of thc coastal zone prosram, where there is an approved local
*Waterfront Rcvit~iiT~tion Plan* (l~rC and some Long J.qlnnd communities Imvc one)
the certifyinS pan'y must consult with thc municipality in the determination of
the consistency of the project with both the state and local plan.
All waters within New York State over which passenger ferry service would
operate, are deemed navigable waters within the United States. Thc Corp.
of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over construction within these navigable
waters. (Construction of wharves, piers, pier extensions and any dredging
and filling within these waters is subject to the jurisdiction of the COE
under 30 USC 401 et. seq.; and 33 USC 1341 et. seq. A permit from COE is
required although these are existing "nationwide# permits which may be
utilized, for example, for the repair of existing piers.) If any federal
approval is required, then the applicant must also obtain a water quality
certificate from the State Department of Environmental Conservation. A
tidal wetland permit, under Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law
may also be required for work in mapped tidal wetlands or adjacent areas.
A case by case analysis is required for all water and shore area construc-
tion to determine the required permitting from COE and DEC. In cases where
there will bo no new construction within the water or adjacent to the water,
i.e. where existing terminal facilities will be used, there may be no permit
requirements (although a Coastal Zone Consistency Certification may bo required).
6.3.2.2 SEORA fState Environmental Ouality Review Act~
The SEQRA process would require an applicant for a proposed ferry terminal to assess the
potential impacts on the transportation system, as well as environmental impacts, such as those
to Town wetlands, aesthetics, air and water quality, and noise. The Town could act as the ~
6-6
Agency for the SEQRA review; the State could assume this role if the Napeague site is assessed,
because it lies on State property. The Napeague site poses particular concerns because
establishment of ferry service there would be in conflict with the Town's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan.
Assuming that zoning regulations would not preclude establishment of a proposed ferry terminal
in the Montauk/Napeague area, site-specific environmental effects will need to be assessed by the
applicant. The SEQRA lead agency will identify the specific parameters to be evaluated.
This document attempts to estimate the effects of new ferry service to the Montauk area on the
roadway system which provides access to potential terminal sites, under varying "scenarios" of
ferry activity. In addition, a qualitative discussion of potential environmental affects, i.e. air
quality and noise, is presented, and parking space requirements are estimated. Estimation of
other specific potential impacts to be assessed as part of the SEQRA review are beyond the scope
of this report. These impacts would include determination of site-specific and remote effects on
the following:
Social and Economic
Residential and neighborhood character and stability
Tax base and property values
Religious, health and educational facilities
Economic activity and employment, particularly in the summer season
Agriculture
6-7
Water Ounli~_. blood Plan. C~t~l Zone ~nd Wetland
Ecology of ~
- P~ ~d ~ b~fi~, ~clud~g ~h~ ~d golf ~ur~s
- ~bHc u~fi~ ~
- Wa~ q~
~ ~d ~oi~ 0~. ~e~
~ (~i~ve)
N~m (~ave)
~gy
~d U~. Joint ~vel~m~t. ~d P~s ~d Bicyclist~
Regio~ ~d ~mm~ty
~oint dev~m~t (i.e. ~n~s~ncy wi~ ~d U~ Plus)
Sold wm~
~n~ ~d ~d~e~ S~i~. S~ M~ifi~on ~d Wildlife
W~d~fe ~d ~ow ~
Historic ~d A~ha~loei~ ~a6on
~n~s~ ~ 1~
6-8
6.3.2.2.1 Environmental Effects of Traffic Increases
R should be noted that any potential traffic increases on the roadway network providing access
to a new ferry lerminal will direclly impact the environment. This impact will include
genea~ion of additional vehicle pollutants and noise. This generation of additional air pollutants
is of particular concern, due to the classification of the Nassau-Suffolk Region as a 'severe non-
attainment' area for ozone, and a 'moderate non-attainmentn area for carbon monoxide, as a
result of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Carbon monoxide is emitted by
vehicle exhaust systems. Ozone is formed when sunlight acts on oxides of nitrogen and organic
vapors produced by vehicles.
The extent of pollutants generated is directly related to average speeds of vehicles on any
particular roadway. Any traffic increases on a roadway will lower the average speeds, usually
(depending on the poz~icular pollutant begin analyzed), resulting in an increase in vehicle
emissions. Aquah'tatlveanalysis oftheseemissions, utilizing an accepted air quality modelsuch
as Mobile b'B, should be requested as pa~ of the environmental assessment to be prepared in
c~mpllance with SEQRA.
More vehicular noise is generated by acceleration and deceleration than by travel at constant
s _l~x~l_ ~s. Acceleration noise includes that generated by gear changes; tire and brake noise occurs
6-9
when vehicles decel~ate. Consequently, noise impacts on the roadway system due to traffic
volume increases would be more acute on intersection approaches which require vehicles to stop,
i.e. at stop signs and traffic signals. Noise impacts are normnlly more evident in the summer,
as people tend to be outside more often, and windows of residences near these intersections tend
to be open'more frequently. As a minimum, an estimate of noise effects, in terms of expected
increases in decibel levels should be required as part of the SEQRA process, both for properties
in the vicinity of the proposed ferry terminal, and at key locations along the existing roadway
system.
6.3.2.2.2 Parking
Parking requirements for a proposed ferry terminal should be thoroughly investigated. The
required number of parking spaces will be dependent on the type of ferxy service provide,
number of vehicles and/or passengers per vessel and number of vessels per day. Adequate space
for loading and unloading of vehicles must be provided if the proposed ferry is designed to
transport vehicles. This would include queuing, or vehicle stacking, lanes.
Accommodation of all feny parking on site in the terminal area is critical, in order to preclude
social and traffic flow concerns generated by parking overflowing onto local roads. The
introduction of high speed passenger ferry service to Connecticut from Orient Point in 1995
generated overflow parking conditions at the ferry terminal site in Orient Point, as well as Waffic
increases along Route 25.
6-10
Based on summer observations at Orient Point, it would appear that a minimum of 425 parking
spaces would be required if a ferry service on a similar schedule were to be estabhshed in the
Montank/Napeague area. Exclusive of unloading and loading areas, this would require over
three acres of parking area. More frequent ferry service than the existing six-round trips per day
for the passenger-ferry operation, and more popular service, (i.e. more passengers per vessel),
could significantly increase parking requirements. The Town of Southold has identified the
potential requirement for up to 1,050 spaces, due solely to thc high-speed passenger ferry~
Institution of passenger ferry service to New York City presents similar concerns, in terms of
estimating parking space requirements. In addition to a dependence on frequency and scheduling
of service, and vessel size, a New York City ferry will generate long-term parking activity. A
significant amount of long-term parking currently occurs in the vicinity of the East Hampton
railroad station. The capacity of the long-term parking area (about 185 vehicles) is exceeded at
times. Much of this parking activity appears to be related to "semi-commuting" in the Town.
This can occur when summer renters utilize the railroad to travel to the Town on summer
weekends, returning to their permanent homes and employment during the work week. It is
reasonable to expect that a New York City ferry would generate a similar demand for long term
parking spaces; again, this is dependent upon frequency and scheduling of ferry service and
vessel size.
6.3.2.2.3
Impacts on the Existing Roadway System
On the surface, new ferry service to the Town may appear to have beneficial effects on traffic
6-11
conditions due to its potential for converting individual automobile trips to more-efficient mass
transportation. This statement may be especially true for a New York City route. The key
concern, however, will be the creation of additional, undesirable traffic congestion on roadways
and at intersections providing access to a new ferry terminal. In the case of a vehicular ferry,
new traffic will be added to the roadway network providing access to the site. In the case of a
passenger-only service, vehicles must transport customers to and from the ferry site. Similar to
parking requirements, traffic impacts will be dependent on the frequency and type of service
provided.
6.3.2.2.4 Montauk as a Potential Destination
Montauk has always been a tourist attraction, with summer traffic increases largely the result of
its recreational facilities and other tourist amenities.
Another consideration in establishment of ferry service to Montauk/Napeague is the potential for
dramatic increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and moped activity in this area, since Montauk will be
readily accessible to New England residents as a summer destination. This is difficult to
quantify. An increase in bicycle activity, and the potential introduction of mopeds, may pose
safety concerns, since residents have already identified speeding vehicles and poor bicycle riding
conditions ns perceived problems on certain roads in Muntauk.
6.3.3 Site Specific Impacts
An attempt was made to estimate the traffic impacts of a potential ferry service to the
Montauk/Napeague area on the roadway network. This analysis does not consider environmental
6-12
effects of such a service, including ah- and noise impacts generated by traffic increases.
Analyses were performed for the following "scenarios" at the three potential ferry terminal sites
at Fort Pond Bay, Lake Montauk and Napeague State Park.
Scenario A - Passenger ferry, with 350 passenger capacity. Assuming three persons per vehicle,
117 vehicles would be attracted by each ferry. This data correlates well with the 255 parked
vehicles observed on a summer weekday at Orient Point, after departure of two passenger-only
ferries (128 vehicles per ferry). For the AM time period, a rounded number of 100 vehicles was
projected for the peak direction of travel for this least-intensive scenario, with most passengers
travelling by private car. It was estimated that an arriving ferry at Montauk/Napeauge in the
morning would carry a similar number of passengers; however, bus service to Montauk/
Napeauge and the South Fork could meet the incoming ferry. If 40 cars and taxis could
accommodate 80 passengers, the remainder could be transported from the teln'ninal using seven
buses.
Scenario B - Passenger/vehicular ferry, accommodating 350 passengers (equal to Scenario A)
plus 100 vehicles. This would generate about 117 vehicles (as in Scenario A) plus 100 additional
vehicles for a total of 217 vehicles. For this scenario, to be conservative, 250 vehicles were used
in the peak direction of travel.
Scenario C - This scenario assumes the arrival of each ferry (Scenario A and Scenario B) within
the same approximate time period; i.e. one hour. Scenario C, therefore, reflects the total
6-13
T,~.B LE 6-1
FERRY TRAFFIC
VEHICULAR BREADKOWN
WI~EKEND AM WEEKEND PM
One Way Peak To Terminal From Terminal To T~[m~ ~r~'~
Veh~l*- Cars Buses * Cars Buses * Cars Buses * Cam Buses *
SCENARIO A
(Passengers Only) 100 98 2 40 7 40 7 98 2
SCENARIO B
(Passengers and
Vehicles) 2,50 247 3 160 11 160 11 247 3
SCENARIO C 350 345 5 200 18 200 18 345
(Combination of A
and B)
* 40 Passengers Each
RGD:efr
10/22/96
vehicular impact of Seen~ios A and B.
This data is summarized in Table 6-1.
In order to assess potential impacts of a new f,~,,y service under each Scenario, the ferry-
generated traffic was assigned to the roadway network providing ~s to each potential
terminal site. Specific percentages of traffic assigned to roadways were as follows:
-50% Route 27 west via Second House and Industrial Roads*
-35% - Route 27 west via CR 49 through 'the circle"*
-10% - Route 27 east
-5 % - CR 49 north
*Scenario "B75" changed these percentages to 20 percent and 65 percent, respectively.
-65% - Route 27 west, via CR 77
-10% - Route 27 west, via Second House and Industrial Roads
-10% - Route 27 west, via CR 49 tire,ugh 'the circle"
-10% - Route 27 west, via CR 77, terminating in Montauk Business
District
-5% - Route 27 east, via CR 77
-70% - Route 27 west, via Cranberry Hole Road
-20% - Route 27 east, via Napeague Meadow Road
-10% - Bluff Road west, via Cranberry Hole Road
The assigned traffic was added to turning movement volumes at key intersections near each of
the proposed terminal sites. These volumes were obtained on a Saturday afternoon in August
1996, or extrapolated from summer traffic counts taken in earlier years. Intersectional capacity
analysis was then performed utilizing the procedures in the 1994 Highway Caoacity Manual, in
order to determine the 'levels of service' for each of thc critical movements at each of the
6-14
inters~tions. The critical movements at these unsign,l;-~,d intersections are turns from the main
roadway ('uncon~olled by stop signs") and all movements from the minor (stop-controlled)
road. Saturday morning traffic volumes were estimated from machine count data and capacity
analyses were performed for that time period as well.
Level of service is a measure of traffic flow or a roadway or at an intersection, with ' A" being
the best level, ~E' being equal to the roadway's capacity and NFN being failure, or conditions
exceeding capacity. At unsignalized intersections, Level of Service 'F' exists when there are
insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow side street traffic lo cross the main street safely. For
any movement, Level of Service is defined as follows:
Average Peak Delay (Sec/Vehl
Greater Than Le~s Than or Eoual TO
A 0 5
B 5 l0
C 10 20
D 20 30
E 30 45
F 45 --
The results of these analyses for the three potential feny terminal sites appear on Tables 6-2,
6-3 and 6-4. At each intersection, the overall Level of Service is the worst level for any
movement analyzed.
At each site, i.e. on each table, it appears that there is at least one intersection which will suffer
a degradation in Level of Service under Scenario A; impacts under Scenarios B and C are more
severe, because traffic generated under these Scenarios increases, when compared with Scenario
6-15
E,XISTINO SCENARIO A SC~4'ARIO B SCI~qARIO BT~ * SCE~.,a. RIO C
~JTICAL CRITICAL CRITiC,U. CRrfiCAL CRrI'ICAL CRIT]CA~ CIUTiCAL C~J'TICAL C/~i]CAL CIU"FICAL
INTERSECTION L,O.S. MOVE LO.S. MOVE LO~. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE
~0~ ~ ~ N. ~ ~ - ~ ~ C~) B SBLT B SBLT,~LT C ~LT C SBLT C SBLT
~ A~ (CR 4~) ~ N. ~M~ ~ ~ ~) B ~LT B $BLT B ~LT B SBLT B SBLT
PM
EXISTINO
CRITICAL CRITICAL CRrrICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITIC. AL C~.I3'IC. AL CRITICAL
INTERSECTION L.O.S. MOVE LO.S, MOVE L.O.S. MOVE L.O,S. MOVE L.O.S. I~OV~
~A~ ~ ~ N. E~ ST - ~ ~ Cimle) E SBLT E $BLT F SBLT F SBLT F SBLT
~E~ A~ (CR49) ~ N. E~E~ ~ ~e ~k) B SBLT. SBRT C SBLT C ~LT C $BLT C SBLT
SBLT - SOUTHBOUN'D LEFt TURN'
NBLT - NOR~ LF. FI' TURN
NBTH. NORTHBOUND THRU
SBTH - SOIII'HBOUND THRU
SBRT - soLrrHBOUND RIGHT TURN
* SCENARIO BTl - SAME AS SCENARIO B EXCEPT
75% OF FERRY BOUND TRAFFIC TRAVELS
THROUGH THE MONTAUK TRAFFIC CLRCLE.
CRITICAL L,O.S. - WORST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR A]qY
MOVEMENT
3/19/97
hcafer.wkl
AM
EXISTINO SCI~NARIO A SCI~iARIO B SCENARIO C
CR1TICA~ CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL iCP. ITICAI CRITICAL CRII'ICAL CRITICAL
INTF. RSECTION L.O.S. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE
MONTAUK ~ ~ N. EDGE;MI!:R~ ~1' - WEST ('Th~ Ciro~) B SBLT C SBLT C $BLT C SBLT
BDOEI,,fl~E AVE (CR 49) ~ N. EDGEMERE ST ~ Ci..dc) B SBLT B SBLT B SBLT B SBLT
~ONTAUK HWY ~ W. LAKE DR/S. ~ ST (CR??) B NB C NB C NB D
~BLT,'TH ~BLT. trH ~BLTtTH
PM
EXISTINO SCENARIO A SCI~qARIO B SCI~IARIO C
;RITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAl CRITICAL "RI'FICA[ CRITICAL CRITICAL CKITICAL
1NTEP.~ECTION L.O.S. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE LO.S. MOVE
MONTAUK ~ ~ N. EDO~iI~.E ~T - WE~T ~ Ci~r~) E SBLT ~ ~BLT F SBLT F SBLT,NBLT
~)G'I~.P,E AVE (CR 49) ~ N. ED(1,F.,MEP~ ST (Ti'~ Ci~,) B SBLT,~BRT B SBLT,.~BRT B SBLT,~BRT B ! SBLT,~BRT
MOICrAUKItWY~W.I.,AK~DR~,I~.,RNST(CP,??) E SB F SB 1~ NB, SB F NB, SB
SBLT - SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN WBLT?rH - COMBINATION WF.~TBOUND LEFT TURN/THRU
NBLT -NOR. THBOUND LEFT TURN SBLT/TH - COMBINATION SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN;rl--IRU
NBTH -NOR. THBO!JND THRU I'qB-NORTHBOUND 3/19/97
SBTH - SOUTHBOUND THRU
SBRT - SOOTHBOUND RIGHT TURN hcafemh.wkl
TABLE 6-4
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PRELIMINARY CAPACITY ANALYSIS (SATURDAY)
FERRY AT NAPEAGUE - EFFECTS AT MONTAUK I-IWY & CHANBERRY HOLE RD INT.
AM PM
DIRECTION EXISTING SCENARIO A SCENARIO B SCENARIO C EXISTING SCENARIO A SCENARIO B SCENARIO C
NORTHBOL~ND B B C D F F F F
SOUTHBOUND B B B C C D F F
EASTBOUND A A A A A A B B
WESTBOUND A A A A A A A A
CRITICAL L.O.S. B B C D F F F F
CRITICAL L.O.S. - WORST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ANY MOVEMENT
A. The existence of laoor level~ of ~erviee under current condition~ manife~t~ itself in delayg
expefien~ by motorists, particularly when attempting to enter main roads such as Route 27
from side roads. The existing Levels of Service are consistent with those computed for roadway
segments in the Town, which appear on Exhibit 8-11, and are further evidence of the fragile
summer traffic conditions at key intersections in the Town.
As vehicle delays increase, lines (or queues) of traffic waiting to turn onto the main road (or to
turn left from the main road) will increase correspondingly. Shown on Table 6-5 axe calculated
'queue loagths~, in numbers of vehicles, for critical movements at selected intersections under
the different scenarios. Although very high calculated queue length values may not actually be
reached, because motorists will begin to accept smaller gaps in traffic under more congested
conditions, they are useful in assessing the relative impact of the various scenarios.
Thc level of service analysis results for thc various ferry scenarios can be considered to be
conservative in some respects. For example, no adjustments were made to the existing "peak
hour factors" on the approaches to the intersections when analyzing proposed scenarios. The
peak hour factor is an indication of uniformity of traffic flow throughout the hour. A peak hour
factor of 1.00 indicates totally uniform flow, i.e. a consistent number of vehicles entering an
intersection in each 15-minut~ period of the peak hour. An intersection subject to 'surgesu in
traffic could have a significantly lower peak hour factor. Based on the tendency for traffic flow
to and from a ferry to be more clustered near arrival and departure times, reduction of existing
peak hour factors would be expected. Table 6-6 is a comparison of capacity analyses and queue
6-16
I
TABLE 6-5
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CALCULATED QUEUE LENGTHS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS
' 95 % QUEUE LENGTHS I NO. OF VEH.) FOR CRITICAL MOVEMENT
FERRY AT INTERSECTION TIME EXISTING SCENARIO A SCENARIO B SCENARIO B 75 SCENARIO C
FORT POND BAY MONTAUK HWY ~ AM 1 1 2 2 3
O.M.H. I SECOND HOUSE RD PM 36 40 49 78 53
LAKE MONTAUK MONTAUK HWY ~ AM 1 1 2 N/A 3'
O.M.H, I SECOND HOUSE RD PM 36 43 55 N/A 58
NAP,F. AGUE MONTAUK HVVY ~ AM I I 2 N/A 5
CRANBERRY HOLE RD PM 14 35 100 N/A 134
* 95% CHANCE THAT NUMBER OF WAITING VEHICLES WILL BE EQUAL TO OR
LESS THAN THESE VALUES. THESE ARE THEORETICAL NUMBERS, WHICH MAY
NOT ACTUALLY BE REACHED (SEE TEXT PAGE 6-16).
N/A - NOT APPLICABLE
TABLE 6-6
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
LEVEL OF SERVICE USING
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ADJUSTMENT
DUE TO FERRY TRAFFIC SURGE
MONTAUK HIGHWAY @ OLD MONTAUK HIGHWAY / SECOND HOUSE ROAD
FERRY LOCATION: FORT POND BAY
TIME PERIOD: PM
EXISTING P.H.F. = .95 EXISTING SCENARIO A SCENARIO B SCENARIO B 75 SCENARIO C
~'"': ............................ :NB:E ~:~: ~::
CRITICAL MO~MENT LO.S. F F F F F
ADJUSTED P.H.F. = .85 EXISTING SCENARIO A SCENARIO B SCENARIO B 75 SCENARIO C
· "' '".' ."'. 7% ~' '"': ~:. ;:~;i :i
~ i:~. :.: ~.,. ~ ~::~i~: i~i~i~i~: ~::.:: ~::;~:~,i~: ::: : ::::
CRITICAL MOVEMENT L,O.$. N/A F F F F
length regults at one in--on, under both the exi~ing peak hour factor :md one reduee~l by
0.1, which would not be an unusual occurrence for an intersection influenced by ferry traffic.
It can be seen that, while l~vel of service results are equal to, or worse than those with the
existing peak hour factor, calculated queue lengths increase significantly.
Another conservative aspect of eapacity analyses for the ferry scenarios is that off-peak impacts
may be greater than the peak conditions analyzed. For example, early morning ferry traffic
bound for a New England *day trip* might be comparable in magnitude to peak-hour ferry trips;
however, the additional traffic would represent a larger percent increase because the existing
traffic volume is lowe~ in the off-peak period. This situation could translate into a greater
deterioration in level of service in the off-peak period than in thc peak hour. This situation
could also occur in the off-season period as well.
Additionally, the analyses are conservative in that consideratoin has not been given to the effects
of new higher-sT~c~ vessels on generation of additional.passengers. Generation of potential.
passengers by specific Connecticut casinos has also not been addressed in these scenarios.
It may be possible to mitigate, to a degree, certain poor levels of service by installing left or
fight turn lanes at some of these locations. However, since in many cases these lanes already
exist, and the principal reason for excessive delays is the near-continuous flow of Lraffic on the
main road, installation of turning lanes may not be sufficient to mitigate the deterioration in level
of service caused by the traffic increases.
6-17
L
TABI F 6-7
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF MONTAUK FERRY ON ROUTE ~7
LEVEL OF SERVICE - SUMMER
LOCATION
NOTES:
1, Assume total ferry traffic in peak direction is generated by arrival of both passeng
2. Reduction in percentages for Amagansett and Wainscott reflects dispersion of ira
3. Five percent growth rate per year used to obtain future traffic volumes without fen
RGD;efi'
04/30/97
;~:;~!!~:~:;:~!:!:!:!~:~:: WITHOUT FERRY WITH FERRY
:¥~::::::~ :~;:: :~ PEAK HOUR PEAK HOU~ PERCENT
,~.0'~;~ .... VOLUME L.O.S. VOLUME ~ NCR~SE L.O.O.
:¥:::¥::B::::::: ............ 1,936 E 2,1 ~ 9% E-
~::~ ~}~ 2,~ F 2,~0 5% F
er-only, and vehicular ferries. Assign 100 vehiclesto each vessel.
ffic and distance from ferry terminal.
In addition to effects on operating conditions at intersections in the vicinity of a Montauk/
Napeague-area terminal, roadway segments elsewhere in the Town would be affected. Table 6-7
is an estimate of the effects on peak hour level of service at three locations along Route 27 when
passe.nger-ouly and vehicular ferries arrive simultaneously. Traffic increases in the peak
direction of travel between 3 and 10 pement have been estimated, in some instances resulting in a
degradation in level of service.
Based on data for the existing Orient Point-New London ferry service, establishment of service
using similar vessels and scheduling to the MontaulcJNapeague area could transport 800,000
passengers (including drivers) per year. On an annual basis, this could translate into 320,000
additional vehicles or an average of about 900 per day. Based on existing traffic volumes on
Route 27 west of Montaulc, if 85% of these 900 vehicles were added to existing traffic at that
location, daily traffic increases of 7 percent would be realized. Since seasonal traffic fluctuation
appears to be greater in Monmuk than elsewhere in the Town, based on count data east of West
Lake Drive, the percentage increase in the "off season" (April) could be as high as 21 percent.
6.3.4 Roadway Access
Unlike the Route 25 access to Orient Point, there is no direct access from an east-west roadway,
i.e. Route 27,to a potential ferry site in the Montauk/Napeauge area. Exclusive of capacity
effects, there are the following concerns with access to each potential site, as follows:
Fort Pond Bay
Roadway access would primarily be by means of Edgemere Street/Flamingo Avenue (CR 49)
6-18
which intersects Route 27 at thc traffic circle in the business district. Speeding concerns exist
on this route.
The alteroative route to Route 27, via Industrial and Second House Roads, is undesirable due
to curvature deficiencies and its traversal of residential areas. It would be difficult to restrict
ferry traffic from utilizing this route.
Thc Route 27/O1d Montauk Highway/Second House Road intersection is a high accident
location.
West Iake Drive (CR 77) is expected to accommodate the bulk of the traffic destined for this
site. The concerns identified for the Fort Pond Bay site axe applicable to Lake Montauk as well,
because Edgemere Street/Flamingo Avenue (CR 49) also provides access to this site.
An access route to the site via West Lake Drive would pass through the following high accident
locations in the Montauk area:
- Route 27/O1d Montauk Highway/Second House Road
CR 49 (Flamingo Avenue)/CR 77 (West Lake Drive)
Route 27 at CR 77
6-19
Nape. ague
Cranberry Hole Road would provide the primary access to the site bemuse of its southwest-to-
northeast orientation. There are concerns with the width of this roadway, as well as horizontal
and vertical curves, particularly at the bridge over the Long Island Rail Road. The bridge itself
has significant structural deficiencies, which will require correction by the Long Island Rail
Road.
Access to the Napeague site via the existing Cranberry Hole Road would be on a roadway with
inferior horizontal and vertical alignment and width. Existing traffic volumes on Cranberpg Hold
Road are low, with a two-way average daily volume of approximately 1,500 vehicles occurring
in the summer. The roadway serves residences and the State Park. The park contains extensive
wetland areas and is a New York State Significant Habitat. Although alignment and width of the
roadway is inferior, since there are no plans for significant developments in this area of the
Town, traffic volumes would not be expected to increase significantly in the future. Percentage-
wise, traffic increases on Cranberry Hold Road due to implementation of ferry service to
Napeague State Park would be substantial. Assignment of 80 percent of the aforementioned
potential average daily ferry traffic of 900 vehicles would represent a daily traffic increase of
nearly 50 percent in the summer, and a higher percentage in the off-season. Traffic volume
increases of this magnitude on a roadway with these physical and traffic volume conditions would
be undesirable.
6-20
This route experiences a significant of non-motorized travel (i.e. bicyclists and rollerbladers)
during the summer season. Due to its current narrow width, lack of shoulders, and alignment
deficiencies, significant increases in vehicular traffic would raise safety concerns for these modes
of travel.
6.3.5 Regional Implications
A new ferry route to the Town of East Hampton from Connecticut should be examined on a
regional basis. Undoubtedly, a significant increase in percentage of New Englanders travelling
to the Town would be expected; currently, based on Tables 2-2 and 2-3, only 4-8 percent of
traffic entering the Town emanates from New England states. Potential traffic increases will be
experienced in Southampton as well. Future highway construction on Route 27 which will
enable a motorist to travel from New York City to Southampton (via Southern State Parkway)
without encountering a traffic signal, and completion of an HOV lane on the Long Island
Expressway, may attract motorists to a Montauk/Napeague-New England ferry link. Motorists
travelling from East Hampton to the Orient Point ferry may re-route to Montauk/Napeague./!t-
should be noted that Suffolk County's 1990 Ferry Access Study concluded that the best route for
new Cross-Sound service would be fi.om Shorcham to New Haven. (The recent developments
concerning LILCO's furore could remove certain obstacles to construction of a ferry terminal on
its property at Shoreham, and could make this a viable route.
6.4 POTENTIAL FERRY ACTIVITY
It was noted previously that impacts of new ferry service are dependent on the type of service
6-21
provided, as well as its frequency. There is real concern that once established, current local
legislation would not preclude a ferry operator from drastically changing the nature of service, or
from increasing the number and sizes of vessels. Should this be the case, it is important that the
most intensive ferry operation be analyzed, in terms of environmental and transportation impacts,
prior to issuance of the required local permits.
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
Potential ferry service to the Town from New York City or New England must be examined on a
regional basis, for consistency with transportation goals of the East End as a whole.
Environmental, economic and social issues will impact the quality of life of MontaulrJNapeague-
area residents must be thoroughly investigated as part of the SEQRA process, in terms of
transportation-related issues, effects of vehicular traffic increases on noise and air quality must be
addressed. These parameters must be evaluated both at key intersections and segments of the
highway network, as well as at the specific terminal site. Provision of adequate on-site parking is
a major concern, based on current experience at the Orient Point Ferry Terminal.
As noted in Section 12.4 of this report, the Town is at a "crossroads" in term of managing
demand on its highway system in the summer season. This conclusion was reached by analyzing
the existing levels of service on key roadways and at critical intersections. Level of service
results depicted on Table 3-1, under a 5 percent annual summer traffic growth, indicate "failureH
conditions on Route 27 at two of the three locations analyzed. This growth rate is conservative,
6-22
in that current average growth at these locations is about 6 percent per year. Route 27 west of
Montauk would reach capacity (Level of Service E) in less than ten years. Ironically, future
capacity improvements to Route 27 (elimination of traffic signals) and the Long Island
Expressway (HOV lanes) may further increase summer traffic grov~h in East Hampton. The
existing roadway system is incapable of absorbing significant traffic growth due to any one
project or development, ferry service included. Therefore, as is the case for future potential
developments, due to the critical capacity conditions of the roadway network, it is recommended
that any ferry service causing a deterioration equal in magnitude to a full level of service (as
defined in the Highway Capacity Manual) at any intersection or highway segment not be
permitted. In addition, any proposed modifications tu the highway system as a result of the
proposed ferry should conform to the following criteria. These criteria were established as a
result of consistem, public input during the course of this study, and are based on the desire to
maintain the Town's rural character:
O
O
O
O
No new roads with thc potential for attracting "bypass" traffic should be constructed.
No additional through travel lanes should be constructed on existing roads.
No additional traffic signals should be installed.
Potential traffic growth on existing bypass routes should be minimized.
These criteria are generally consistent with those previously developed by the planning Board,
and included in the Arterial Highway Capacity Study for Montauk prepared in 1986. The
preliminary analysis of three ferry terminal sites in the Montauk/Napeague area, while general in
nature, follows procedures which would be undertaken in the SEQRA process. The results
6-23
indicate that traffic increases due to potential ferry activity will result in the aforementioned
decrease of one level of service at key intersections neax the terminal sites. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Town adopt zoning regulations to prevent new ferry service from being
established to the MontaukfNapeauge area.
7.0 AIRPORTS
7.1 TOWN AIRPORT
The Town of l~ Hampton owns and operates its own airport, which is located in Wainscott
along Daniels Hole Road north of Montauk Highway. The airport is classifu~l as a transport
category commereial service airport. An Airport Layout Plan Up-Date was prepared in May
of 1994. This plan assessed existing conditions at the airport and determined the proposed
facilities needed to satisfy aviation demands over the next 20 years.
There are three existing runways at the aL, pon, one of which can accommodate small business
jets and power driven air charter aircraft. In 1992, there were a total of 33,000 take-offs and
landings at the East Hampton Airport. Future projections are for this number to double after
the year 2002. The 1994 Airport Layout Plan Up-Date recommended that the following projects
be undertaken:
o Convert Runway 16-34 to a taxiway (summer only)
o Construct new terminal building
o Construct automobile parking ~rea
o Reconstruct airl~rt access road
o Relocate one building and demolish five buildings on airport property
o Construct transient/commuter apron
o Conslruct aircraft parking a~ron
o Install precision instrument approach to Runway 10-28
7-1
A copy of the specific airport layout plan (summer operation) depicting these improvements is
shown as Exhibit 7-1. Construction of a new terminal, access road and additional parking is
currently underway.
Another proposed improvement involved the relocation of Daniels Hole Road, which provides
access to the airport from Route 27. Three alternatives have been developed for relocating the
roadway. The relocation is necessary because the roadway constitutes an obstruction to both
Runways 16 and 22, and it is located within the safety area for Runway 28.
In 1988, the Town prepared an Environmental Impact Statement, which determined that the
terminal building, access rood and apron projects would not cause significant environmental
effects. Other proposed projects would require a similar determination beforo they can proceed
to construction.
7.2 MONTAUK AIRI~ORT
Montauk Airport is a privately owned and operated facility located on the east side of Lake
Montauk. The airport has one, 3,500 font long paved runway and accommodates private
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The future layout of the Town airport was studied in 1994, and the Town is in the process of
implementing the recommended improvements. The remainder of the identified projects should
7-2
LQCATZI~ ~
AZRPORT DATA
RUNWAY DATA
LEGEND
MS! HAIJ)TON AIIKOGRT
REVISIONS
G
EXHIBIT 7-1
G
~ OPiI~TIOII
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
be completed in accordance with the plan.
Wainscott residents are not supportive of improvements which would encourage growth in air
travel to East Hampton. As a result, it is recommended that only the following projects be
undertaken at the airport:
o Those projects identified in the Airport Layout Plan.
o Other projects with only aircraft safety-related purposes, i.e. those which would not
encourage additional airport operations (i.e. takeoffs and landings). Examples would be
runway resurfacing and aircraft signage projects.
7-3
8.0 HIGHWAYS
8.1 ItlGHWAY NETWORK
The Town of 1~,~ Hampton has an extensive highway network, consisting of State, County and
Town Roads. S~ate roads are Route 2'/, which traverses the entire Town for 24.8 miles from
west to east, and Route 114, which extends northward from Route 27 to the Village of Sag
I-Iad~r, a distance of about 6.5 miles. Key County Roads (CR) are the following:
o CR 40 - Three Mile Hafoor Road - Connects East Hampton and Springs (2.5 miles
long)
o CR 41 - Springs-Fireplace Road - Connects F~st Hampton and Springs (3.1 miles long)
o CR 49 - Edgemere Street/Flamingo Avenue - Connects Route 27 in Montank with the
north end of Lake Montauk (3.1 miles long)
o CR 59 - Long Lane - Connects East Hampton and Stephen Hands Path (1.0 miles long)
o CR 77 - West I~ke Drive - Connects Route 27 in Montauk with the north end of Lake
Montauk (3.1 miles long)
The remainder of the highway network is comprised of Town, Village and private roadways.
There are approximately -- miles of roadway maintained by the Town. With the exception of
Route 27 through a portion of East Hampton Village, which consists of two lanes in each
direction, all roads are one through lane in each direction. Shoulders exist along many of the
arterial and coBector roadways.
8-1
For purposes of highway classification, Fast Hampton lies in a rural area. Route 27 is the only
road which is part of the National Highway System. In addition, there are several roads and
segments of roads, which are currently available for Federal aid. These roads are shown on
Exhibit 8-1.
8.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Traffic volumes were obtained by means of two methods, machine (automatic) counters and
turning movement counts at key intersections. Machine counters recorded two-way traffic
volume at 30 locations in August 1996. From this data, average summer daily traffic volumes
were estimated. This data appears on Exhibit 8-2, along with estimated off-season average daily
traffic volumes at each location.
Route 27 carries the highest volume of traffic within the Town, with about 29,000 vehicles
crossing the Southampton-East Hampton Town boundary on an average summer day. This
volume reduces to about 22,000 vehicles east of East Hampton Village and about 9,000 vehicles
east of Montauk. Route 114 at the Village of Sag Harbor/Town of East Hampton boundary
carries about 12,000 vehicles on an average summer day. Other roadways carpjing over 10,000
vehicles include:
o Newtown Lane, North Main Street, and Cedar Street in the Village of ~n~t Hampton,
north of Route 27
o Three Mile Harbor Road (CR 40), north of l:~,t Hampton Village
o Edgemere Street (CR 49) north of Route 27 in l~Iontauk.
8-2
GRAPHIC SCAL~
DRA]
TOWN ON' EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
FEDERAL All') ELIGIBLE ROADWAYS
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~'"'°'
February 1997 LK.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16 8
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
~ NATI0NAL HIGHWAY
SYSTEM ROADWAY
FEDERAL AID,
~ -~' ELIGIBLE ROaDWAy
GRAPHIC SCALE
DRAI
L
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPPAT~.
~ AVERAGE D^H.Y ~C VOLUM~
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
February 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj, No. 30-000-IS 8- 2
A general idea of traffic volume variation during a summer week can be obtained by examining
traffic data from three machine count stations along Route 27. Daily data obtained at the
following locations was tabulated and graphed, by direction of travel, on Exhibits 8-3 through
8-8:
Location
Number
5
Direction Peak Day Peak
Location 9f Travel 9f Week Hour
Near Southampton Eastbound Friday 4-5 PM
Town Line Westbound Sunday 7-8 PM
26 l~*t of l:z~t Hampton l~n*thound Saturday
Village Westbound Sunday
12-1 PM
4-5 PM, 7-8 PM
4 Montauk l~s~bound Saturday 12-1 PM, 1-2 PM
Westbound Sunday 4-5 PM
The data graphically illustrates the extent of weekend
travel to and from the Town in the
summer season. This travel pattern of eastbound travel to the Town from Long Island, New
York City and other points in the Northeast United States on Fridays and Saturdays, with return
trips on Sundays and Mondays, recurs every weekend. Fastbound travel generally occurs on
Friday afternoons and evenings, and Saturday mornings and afternoons. Return trips to the west
occur on Sunday afternoons and evenings, and Monday mornings.
At 18 of the 30 locations where machine count data was obtained, similar data was obtained in
the summer of 1982, as an up-date to data collected in 1965 for the previous Transportation
Plan. Comparisons of 1965, 1982, and 1996 data appear on Table 8-1 and Exhibit 8-9.
8-3
TABLE
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATI~
1965,1982 AND 1996 ADT COMI~ARISOI
196~ 96 PERCgWT PERC~WT
ROADWAY FROM TO SUMMW3~ M~I~ INC]P,~ASE
~O~AU~ ~ ~ ~7) ~ ~w ~ ~A~ ~e ~.~o~
S~H~ ~ PA~ MO~A~ ~ ~YS 27) C~ST 313
C~ ~ O~ NOR~ ~ NOR~ ~ ST ~62 43
O~ NOR~ ~ CED~ ST C~ ~ 6 4 9~ 1 ~ I ~ 133%
~HA~ ~ ~ ~ SP~O~O~8~ 1-1- ~ 4~
~S~ SP~GS ~ MO~A~ ~ ~ ~) SP~OS ~P~E ~ ~ ~ 25~ 4~%
~ ST~ A~ MO~A~ ~ ~ 2~) ~T ~ DR 3,4~ ~8 16~% ~3%
~DS C~ ~ C~ ~ ~ B~CH 128 ~ ~ 2~3%
O~ MO~ ~ MO~A~ ~ ST. BL~ MO~A~ ~ ~. BL~ 1,827
~OYB~ ~ ~C~K~ ~~R~ ~1 ~ 276% SI~
~ ~ A~ONAC~ ~ ~SE~ SP~GS ~ {27 ~0 2~% ~3~
PRO~S~ ~ MO~A~ ~ ~Y ~ 72~
~ER ~E ~DI~ ~LL P~ H~ E. ~ON ~L~GE 9~ 92 139% 26~
I TOTAL { ~6S0
~l'~ 2~7 O9:08 AM AD?COMP.WIt3
45O
EXHIBIT No. 8-3
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No. 4
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF FERN STREET)
DIRECTION: EASTBOUND
DALLY AVG. VOLUME
PEAK DAY VOLUME (SATURDAY)
!:00 AM 3:00 AM ~:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM $:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 11:00 PM
T~M~ (HOURS)
EXHIBIT No. 8-4
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No. 4
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF FERN STREET)
DIRECTION: WESTBOUND
4~0
400
350
0
1:00 ~AM 3:00 AM $:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM II:00AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 11:00 PM
'--"~DAILY AVG. VOLUIVW. TIME (ltOURS)
PIZAK DAY VOLUM~ (SUNDAY)
EXHIBIT No. 8-5
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No. 5
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF TOWN LINE ROAD)
DIRECTION: EASTBOUND
1200
200 t
1:00 AM 3:00 AM 5:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM $:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 11:00 PM
TIME (HOURS)
-'-~ 'DAILY AVG. VOLUME
PEAK DAY VOLUME ~RIDAY)
EXHIBIT No. 8-6
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No. 5
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF TOWN LINE ROAD)
DIRECTION: WESTBOUND
1200
1000
200
0
1:00 AM 3:00 AM 5:00 AM 7:00 AM
..... DALLY AVG. VOLUM~
pF~AK DAY VOLUI~ (SUNDAY)
9:00 AM II:00AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 11:00 PM
TIME (IlOURS)
EXHIBIT No. 8-7
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No. 26
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF SKIMHAMPTON ROAD)
DIRECTION: EASTBOUND
1000
8OO
300
20O
0
1:00 AM 3:00 AM $:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM S:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 11:00 PM
TIME (HOURS)
~ ' ' 'DAILY AVG. VOLUME
PEAK DAY VOLUME (SATURDAY)
EXHIBIT No. 8-8
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No. 26
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF SKIMHAMPTON ROAD)
DIRECTION: WESTBOUND
30O
20O
0
!:00 AM 3:00 AM ~:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 1 !:00 PM
~ (nOUaS)
...... DALLY AVG. VOLUME
PEAK DAY VOLUM~
GRAPHIC SCALE
DRA]
TOWN OF ~.AST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
1965, 1982, AND 1996 AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES COMPARISIONS
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~,b~t,o
February 1997 LK.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16 8--~
SYMBOL
DESCRIPTION
1982 vs. 1965 t17 YEARS)
-1996 vs. 1965 (31 YEARS)
COUXT STATION No.
COUNT STATION LOCATION
Based on data at these locations, between 1965 and 1982, summer traffic on Route 2'/
experienced a growth of about 120 percent, or a little mom than a doubling in magnitude. This
co~ds to an annual (simple) growth rate of 7.1 percent per year. Between 1982 and 1996,
the average summer traffic growth was 81 percent overall, or 5.8 percent per year. When
taking the 31 year period between 1965 and 1996 as a whole, average summer traffic growth
was 202 percent, or 6.5 percent per year.
With three exceptions, average summer traffic volume growth at the other count locations was
higher than that on Route 27. Some roads experienced 31-year growth of 1000 percent or mote;
it should be noted that 1965 volume on these roads were very low. Average growth rates,
"weighted" by the amount of traffic at each location, are shown at the bottom of Table 8-1. The
140 percent overall growth between 1965 and 1982 corresponds to an average annual growth of
8.2 percent; between 1965 and 1996 the 273 percent overall rate is equivalent to an annual rate
of 8.8 percent.
In contrast, the population of the unincorporated portion of the Town grew from 8,377 in 1970
to 13,742 in 1990, based on U.S. Census data. This 64 percent increase corresponds to an
average increase of 3.2 percent per year.
Turning movement traffic volumes were obtained at several intersections on Saturday afternoons
in August, where capacity was perceived to be a concern. Data previously collected in August
1985 at other intersections was expanded to 1996 by using a growth factor obtained after
8-4
i{
~ -~. P~K ~OUR
VOLUMES
...
...
.-
...
...'
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
EXISTING
PEAl( HOUR
VOLUMES
AUGU
PANTIGO
EXISTING
PF, AK HOUR
VOLUMES
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
53OSTING TURNING MO~ VOLUME MAP
OVF_Sr SECTION)
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C. E"Sb't~"
February 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16 1~
SYM~BOL D~SCRIPTION
INTERSECTION LOCATION
DRAFT
2000
E~STING ~ ~o
PEAK HOUR _~
VOLUMES
EXISTING
PE~ HOUR
tHIC SCALE
VOLUMES /
{ZXISTING
HOUR
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUME MAI:
(FAST SEC-~ON)
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
February 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16 l b~
SYMBOL i DESCRIFrlON
$ [ INTERSECTION LOCATION
DRAFT
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
EXISTING EXISTING
33~-~ P~ HOUR ~- ~ ~ ~ P~K HOUR
VOLUMES
VOLUMES ~6 -~
examining 1996 machine count data. Peak hour traffic data at these locations is shown on
Bxhibits 8-10A and 8-lOB.
8.3 HIGHWAY CAPACITY
Methodology contained in the Highway Ca_~city. Manual, published by the Transportation
Research Board in 1994, was utilized to assess traffic conditions on major roadways within the
Town. Summer machine traffic volume counts were utilized in determining 1996 Levels of
Servico on the roadways. The results are shown on Exhibit 8-11.
Level of Service is a measure of traffic congestion or a roadway or at an intersection, with
being the best level, "E~ being equal to the roadway's capacity and "F" being failure, or
conditions exceeding capacity.~ost roadways shown on Exhibit 8-11 operate at Level of
Service *D" or worse on an average summer day. It should be noted that intersections along
these roadways with significant cross traffic will typically operate at worse levels than those for
roadway segments¥~
Because individual levels of service can represent a broad range of traffic volumes, "+ and -"
levels were introduced to better refine the results.
An assessment of "off-season" traffic conditions on Route 27 was made from machine count data
collected in April 1997. The results are shown on Table 8-1A. At the three locations analyzed,
daily totals of April represent between 67 percent and 33 percent of those in August, decreasing
8-5
TABLE 8-1A
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PI.AN
COMPARISON OF SUMMER AND 'OFF SEASON' LEVEL OF SERVICE ON ROUTE 27
% TRAFFIC
AUGUST 96 APRIL 97 APRIL/AUGUST
AVERAGE PEAK AVERAGE PEAK
DAILY HOUR DAILY HOUR AVERAGE PEAK
LOCATION TRAFFIC VOLUME L.O.S. TRAFFIC VOLUME LO.S. DAY HOUR
Wainscott (No. 5) 29,007 2,134 E- 19,315 1,793 E 67% 84%
Amagansett (No. 26) 21,772 1,733 E 11,746 1,124 D 54% 65%
Montauk (No. 4) 9,075 1,309 D 3,001 383 C+ 33% 29%
NOTES:
1. AIl figures are two-way traffic (sum of both directions).
2. Level of Service (L.O.S.) is based on peak-hour traffic volumes.
RGD:efr
04/30/97
GRAPHIC SCALE
( iN FgET, )
,? FtREi~
TOWN OF EAsT HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
A~TB~ LBV~L OF SB~VICB
L. K. ~¢LEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C. I
February 1997 LK.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16 8--1
TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA)
~' ~k~'~COUNT STATION No.
~COUNT ~TiTION LOCATION
SYMBOL DF~CRIPTION
I,~95i S ~ LEVEL OF SERVICE 'D'
~ LEVEL OF SERVICE 'C
~ LEVEL OF SERVICE
~ LEVEL OF SERVICE 'E'
[~ LEVEL OF SERVICE 'F'
from the west (Wninscott) to the east (Montauk). In the peak hour, at the two westerly locations
0Vainscott and Amagansett), April traffic volumes represent higher percentages of August
I~ffic; at Wainscott, April peak hour volumes are 84 percent of those in August, and the
corresponding Level of Service 'E" is close to that (E-) in August. In Amagansett, the "off-
season" Level of Service is "D', compared to "E" in August. The level of service in Montauk
deteriorates significantly between April and August, from "C-~-" to "D".
Capacity analysis was performed at those intersections where turning movement traffic volume
was obtained. These results appear on Table 8-2. Several locations exhibit unsatisfactory
Levels of Service; improvements to mitigate these conditions arc discussed in Section 8.8.
8.4 TRA~'~'iC ACCIDENTS
Traffic accident data was obtained for the latest available three-year period, in order to identify
locations with significant numbers of traffic accidents. Data was obtained for calendar years
1992 through 1994 from the following sources:
o New York State Accident Surveillance System - Routes 27 and 114x/'/
o Suffolk County Department of Public Works - County Roads
o New York State Local Accident Surveillance System (CLASS) - Town and Village Roads
Table 8-3 is a summary of thc 27 locations (intersections or roadway segments) with the highest
number of accidents in the three year period. It should be noted that only accidents involving
personal injury or more than $1,000 in property damage are described as "reportable" accidents,
8-6
TABLE 8-2
TOWN OF EAST I-LKIVlFiON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PRELIM]flqARY CAPACITY ANALYSIS (S~TURDAY)
%VOOD$ LANR (NYS 27) O MA~q ST 0/ff.L OF L HAMPTON) TH 43 ~rI 140 ¢ B 0.T70
2::'it~?:i! ~3~?~J:: A ItT # A
~:::::' !~::: LT 42 LT 2~ LT 28
s.l-t~H. 'm~ (NYS l 14) 0 ST~c~N F,A,'*,'DS PATti T'~ 3t? E TH 240 S TH 212 F TH ]9l C E t.o46
Tun (+). ~ .~,~,-,t Io~ion
) I )
TABLE 8-3
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATION SUMMARY
DATA CO~.I.ECT~D (1992- 1994)
~- SlgmlL~d Intruder/on . Ivhy be pot~ti~l Pmbkm
i.e. those required by law to be reported. This fact explains the public perception that there are
many more accidents occurring at a particular location than statistics indicate. If 40 percent of
the total number of accidents are reported, actual accident totals would be generally 2-1/2 times
the number recorded.
It should be noted that the Suffolk County Department of Public Works has historically used a
total of five accidents per year to de£me a high accident location, in rural areas such as
Hampton.
Although the accident totals shown in Table 8-3 are not equal to actual numbers of accidents,
the reported numbers were used in estabtishing a ranking of the locations, in order of decreasing
overall accident totals. On Table 8-3, accident totals by year are shown. In addition to
Xreportable' accidents previously described, other accidents may have been reported, but details
describing these accidents were not recorded. For 'reportableN accidents, data on time of day,
injuries, pavement condition, weather and type of accident are shown on Table 8-3. Exhibit 8-
12 is a map depicting the high accident locations.
At the 27 locations, accident data was analyzed to identify any trends, and observations were
made at each location in order to identify safety-related improvements which could be
implemented to reduce accident occurrences.
8-7
r-.i
.l
GRAPHIC SCALE '
,~ BRA!
'18
PT
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
February 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj. No, 30-000-16
SYMBOL
DESCRIPTION
~IGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS
COUNTY ~ LOCAL ROAD
(NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
FROM 1992 THROUGH 1994)
SYMBOL
DESCRIPTION
NEW YORK STATE ROAD
(NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
FROM 1992 THROUGH 1994
~0CA?10N No.
SIGNALIZED
}~ERSECTIONS)
$.5 FUTURE CAPACITY AND SAFETY IMPROVF_,ME. NTS
Few highway projects are planned in the Town of ~a,t Hampton in the next five years. Projects
planned by the New York State Department of Transportation include:
Construction (1997) of an eastbound left turn lane on Route 27 at the intersection with
Stephen Hands Path (PIN 0008.18)
Pavement rehabilitation with some safety impwvements (1999) on Route 27 from the
Town of Southampton to Cranberry Hole Road (PIN 0058.92)
Pavement 'armor coat" (1999) on Route 27 from Cranberry Hole Road to Montauk Point
(P~N 00~8.96)
Improvement of vertical clearance on Route 114 (1998) beneath the Long Island Rail
Road overpass (PiN OTO 873). The current posted clearance is 11'-0".
8.6 OTHI~-R HIGHWAY NEEDS
Additional data on roadway conditions in the Town was supplied by means of citizen input
obtained at the five Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings.
meetings can be summafiz~ as follows:
Route 27
A.
Key concerns obtained at the
Need for left turn hnes and other channelization:
Wainscott-Northwest Road in Wainscott (revise lane markings on northbound
approach)
Newtown l-~ne./North Main Street in the Village of East Hampton (eastbound left
8-8
'turn lane back-ups at North Main Street impact Newtown Lane intersection, also
westbound merging problems)
At post office and laundromat in Amagansott
At the east intersection of Old Montauk Highway in Montauk
The above locations were mentioned at the meetings. Other appropriate locations
should be incorporated into NYSDOT's rehabilitation projects on Route 27. These
include the Town Hall and Town Hall Annex entrances, particularly in light of use of the
Town Hall parki,ng field as a shuttle bus stop as discussed in Section 5. In addition, the
following intersectional improvements should be made:
Route 27 at Old Montauk Highway (Amagansett):
Construct shoulder on Route 27 adjacent to channelizing island
Route 27 at Abraham's Landing Road (Amagansett):
Eliminate existing channelized roadways, construct conventional intersection.
Reverse flow on one-way aisle in railroad station parking area. Coordinate
improvements with the proposed Southampton-Past Hampton bicycle path, which
will proceed westerly, adjacent to the LIRR right-of-way, from this point.
Need to review passing zones (existing pavement markings):
Amagansett (Cranberry Hole Road - Surf Drive area)
Napeague (hotel/restaurant area)
Montank (business district)
8-9
Excessive delays entering Route 27 from side roads/parking areas:
Wainscott Business District
Village of East Hampton Business District
Amagansett Business District
Speeding:
Waiuscott Business District
Amagansett (from the Post Office to Napeague Lane)
Napeague (hotel/restaurant area)
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Concerns:
Crossing Route 27 in business areas -
* Wainscott
* Village of East Hampton
* Amaga. nsett
Emergency Services:
Response times are impacted by congestion on Route 27:
Springs
Amagansett
Montauk
Route 114
PedesMan/Bieycle Safety:
Need for coustruetion of sidewalks to remove pedesu'iaus fi'om shoulder of road
8-10
Need to better delineate shoulder area to discourage vehicles from using shoulder
Spee,~ng/Traffic Calming:
Need to reduce speeds, and extend distance for transitioning speeds approaching
Village of Sag Harbor from the south
Consider improvements near the old "toll gate" area to reduce speeds and "funnel"
traffic into Village of Sag Harbor
Alignment:
- Improve horizontal and vertical alignment in the vicinity of Hillside Drive
County and Local Roads
A. Speeding:
Wainscott (on bypass routes such as Wainscett-Stone Road, Wainscett-Main
Strcet)
Amagansett (on bypass routes including Sldmhampton Road, Further Lane and
Bluff Road)
Montauk (Old Montauk Highway, Flamingo Avenue, West Lake Drive)
Springs (Three Mile Harbor Road, Talmage Farm Lane, Springs-Fireplac~ Road,
Flaggy Hole Road, Fort Pond Boulevard, and near Maidston¢ Park)
B. Traffic Volumes on Bypass Roads:
Wainscott (significant truck traffic uses thes~ routes)
Amagansett
Springs
8-11
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Concerns:
Wainscott (Wainscott Stone Road)
Amagan~t (Further Lane)
Montauk (poor bicycle riding conditions on Old Montauk Highway, Old West
Other Concerns:
These include specific intersections (alignment, sight distance) and drainage
problems
In addition to public input, most of the major roads in the Town were inventoried, on a cursory
basis, to obtain general geometric information, including number and width of travel lanes and
shoulders, speed limits, general alignment features, pavement and pavement marking conditions,
and existing traffic signs. The results of the observations, including suggestions for
improvements, appear on Table 8-4.
Other highway needs involve insufficient vertical clearances under bridges carrying the LIRR
over Town or Village of F~st Hampton roads. Existing posted clearances range from 9'-0" to
10'-2". These include the following locations:
o Stephen Hands Path
o Daniels Hole Road
o North Main Sm~e~
o Accabonac Road
8-12
TABLE 8-4
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PRELIMINARY TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON ROADWAY SUMMARY, GgNI3~,AL CHABA~.-~i~ASTICS AND CONDITIONS
The restricted clearances are causing lrucks to alter their desired delivery routes~ Increasing thc
clearances by lowering the highway profile is desirable. Based on the existing roadway system,
it does not appear that these improvements will generate significant thru (or bypass) truck traffic
in existing residential areas. However, this conclusion should be confirmed before
improvements are made.
There are deficiencies on thc bridge structure carrying Cranberry Hole Road over the LIRR.
These include structural settling of the bridge abutments. In addition, sight distance over the
bridge is restricted by the existing vertical curvature of the roadway and lane widths are narrow.
The LIRR intends to address the structural deficiencies. The Town Highway Department's
intention is to make limited roadway alignment improvements when structural construction
OCcurs.
8.7 NTRAFFIC CALMINGN
Typically, the two traffic concerns on local roads most often cited by residents are the volume
and speed of through Ixaffic. F:.ast Hampton residents share these concerns. Traffic volume
increases on local roads have generally outpaced traffic growth on Route 27 over the last 30
years, in many cases occurring because of summer congestion on Route 27 and other roads.
Much of this "bypass" Uaffic is exceeding local speed limits, as motorists attempt to ensure that
traveliing on the usually longer bypass does not result in an increase in time over the shorter
congested route.
8-13
Included by residents among the safety concerns of quickly-moving traffic are the safety of
pedestrians and bicycles proceeding along these routes. Pedestrians can be removed from the
traveled way by providing safety paths (sidewalks); bicyclists (and skaters) are attempting to
share the pavement area with the vehicles.
Other municipalities around the United States have employed various measures to "calm" the
flow of traffic. "Calming" attempts to achieve a reduction in the speed of vehicles generally by
changing the width and visual appearance of the pavement area and the adjacent "street scene"
(e.g. sidewalk and landscaped area). The intent of "traffic cnlrnin§" measures is to increase the
driver's attentiveness, resulting in reduced potential for traffic accidents, thereby increasing
traffic safety.
Numerous techniques have been used as traffic calming measures; however, only one of these
appear to have potential for significant use within the Town. Where there is sufficient existing
pavement width, use of the pavement can be re-apportioned in such a way that the travel lane
width is reduced and a shoulder is created. This is accomplished simply by installing appropriate
pavement markings without removing existing pavement. The narrower travel lane has the
potential to reduce speeds, and the shoulder can accommodate bicycle travel.
Several traffic calming measures were considered for use in the Town. Some of these measures
include:
o Reduction in pavement width available for travel lanes. Motorists will generally reduce
8-14
speeds on narrower pavements. This can be accompanied by an increase in sidewalk
area, and additional landscaping to enhance the visual appearance of the road. The
installation of shoulders on a wide pavement area are also sometimes effective.
Reduction in speed limit. The effectiveness of this measure is minimal, if geometric
conditions on the road are such that a motorist feels he can travel safely at (or above) the
original posted speed limit. In addition, this measure requires additional police
enforcement.
Installation of geometric features, such as:
Chokers, a narrowing of the pavement at a particular location, usual!y at aa
intersection or the middle of a block.
Traffic circles.
Median barriers.
Diverters, to restrict turns or specific directions of travel, at intersections.
Cul-de-sacs, to create dead-end streets.
Raised intersections, where the pavement in the intersection area is raised a few
inches above the normal level of the intersecting roads.
Rumble strips
Pavement undulations, such as speed humps.
- Installation of stop signs on through roads to create ~ail way stop" intersections.
This measure is generally effective in reducing speeds for very short distances
8-15
near the intersection. Multiple installations along a roadway could be effective
in reducing the number of blatant speed violators; however, a diversion of traffic
to other, routes with less desirable conditions (geometric and social) could occur
as a result.
It would appear that, on those bypass routes subject to traffic increases, of all these measures,
reduction in the available pavement area upon which the motorist can travel may be the most-
effective measure for use in East Hampton, provided that there is enough pavement width to
safely accomplish this. This measure could create a shoulder area which can be utilized by
bicyclists and skaters and would require only installation of pavement markings on the existing
paved roadway.
A reduction in speed limit will be effective only if the new speed limit is reasonable, given the
roadway's geometric conditions.
Other measures, such as installation of all-way stop intersections and physical geometric features,
do not appear appropriate given the rural nature of the Town.
8.8 RECOMMENDATIONS
All highway improvements should be consistent with the following, in order to maintain the rural
character of the Town:
o No new roads with potential for aRracting "bypass" traffic should be constructed.
o No additional through lanes should be constructed on existing roads.
8-16
O
O
No additional traffic signals should be installed.
Potential traffic growth on existing bypass routes should be minimized.
The Town should review the current designation of Federal Aid roadways as shown on Exhibit 8-
1, with the State and County. The designation should be revised 'to be consistent with existing
traffic volumes and the 'function" of each roadway. The functional classifications include
arterials, collector and local roads. Local and minor collector roads are not normally eligible for
Federal aid.
As an initial stage, roads with annual average daily traffic volumes over 5,000 vehicles should be
considered for inclusion in the Federal-Aid system. This list can be refined following discussions
with the State, County and Town.
The Town should initiate projects to implement the improvements at High Accident Locations
shown in Table 8-5. While some of these improvements will result in increased intersecfioual
capacity, they are primarily safety-related.
Geometric improvements should be made at the intersection of Route 27 with North Main Street
in the Village of East Hampton; conceptual alternatives are shown in Exhibits 8-13 and 8-13A.
A less desirable alternative would be to reroute eastbound Route 27 traffic desitned for North
Main Street to the signalized Egypt Lane intersection to the east, a somewhat circutous route for
those vehicles.
8-17
D
05101/97
08:46 AM
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TABLE
POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS AT I
14
Mo~k Hwy (W. of w~mo~ ~u~ Rd)
M-M. 705169~
!RANSPORTATION PLAN
18-5
[IGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS
l~mk~ TI~ C.~'~b (E~l) O1X~ WAY Sa~i~ml m/NO ~.FT
ACC-LOC.V~rK4
16 M~etm~k Hw/~ $.H./F-H. Tpke ('NYS l 14)
· 17
A~ommk Hw,/(~ ~ld Mmm~ HiSJm~ (~s~)
Wmb~mdL~ T~
18 Ced,r St ~ St,~yi,m Ibnds l~h
19 S{~p Fit~ Rd (CR 41 ) ~ Tim~ Mik l.b, rb~ Rd (CR 40)
2O Spmp Fir, tahoe ~d (C~ 4~) ~t J, cboe/Fk~
21 Tiu~ ivrdc H,,b,x- i~l (CR 40) ~ Sc, k Hides
22 M.M. 7051688
24 Mmtmk Hwy (~ Stqbm J.bnds eo~h
lbuu. F..nd ~,L.~ v,a~n8 h tn
M.M. 7051716
~ - Ivfil~ Mftrkcr
'VPH - Vchlehn p~' Horn'
!wy ~1~ L~ T~n~ 2v~.
Ired 2 v~w L~lt T~ s~mb.
Im-3l VPH
~-n- 13 VPH
'yin - 145 VPH
immll ~I"OP AI..~,AD sigm m I~ l.,Ismis p~h.
C_.~mid,~ movln8 d,-. ips~s~=:6,m to *h.- Nod~ .~,ti,d~ oould ~dso
A 1 ~95 !~ imialld a Lg/t Turn Iss~ d gsis ImmliQn. Tn~
NYS lure a 1~ that v'tiil bY i'~t'll;%' s Eastbound Left Turn on .
SEE ~ FOR LOCATION # 1
ACC-LOC.V~.4
?
F
~F
I~MOVE PAVEMENT -
CREATE 'OFIEE~ AF~.A'
RIGHT TURN
Z--TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH TWO PHAS~
j-ANE
N~ORTH N[Att, I ST.
County and Town roads should be improved as indicated in Table 8-4. Shoulders and safety
paths should be constructed where appropriate. Where sufficient pavement width exists, a
reduction of thc width of travel lanes can help to "calm" traffic flow, while creating shoulder
areas. This technique may be particularly useful in rfllninlizing bypass use of local roads.
Improvements to the alignment of local roads should be safety-related, and not meant to attract
additional traffic. Installation of left- and right-turn lanes at intersections should be implemented
where appropriate. Further study is needed to define specific projects.
Improvements in vertical clearances of roadways beneath the LIRR should be accomplished at
Stephen Hands Path, Daniels Hole Road, North Main Street and Accabonac Road. The latter
two bridges are located in the Village of East Hampton.
The future reconditioning and preservation project along Route 27 should include construction of
left turn lanes. The State should evaluate both the need for alignment improvements on Route
114 near Hillside Drive, and speed zone transitions entering the Village of Sag Harbor from the
south.
Evaluation of existing passing zones on Routes 27 and 114 should be undertaken as soon as
possible.
8-18
9.0 "DO~ArNTOWN'' AREAS
Several major business disUicts, or "downtown" areas, are included within the scope of this
study. These include the following:
Wainseott
Hampton (Village)
Amagansett
Montauk
Sag Harbor (Portion of
Village within Town)
Route 27
Route 27, Newtown Lane,
North Main Street
Route 27
Route 27, Edgemere Street
(CR 49)
Route 114
Other Modes of
Town Airport, Bus
Rail, Bus, Taxi
Rail, Bus
Rail, Bus, Taxi
Bus
9.1 MOBILITY
During the summer season, thc influx of traffic on the State roadways (Route 27, Route 114)
serving these areas results in traffic congestion, which reaches its worst conditions during the
following time periods:
o Friday evenings
o Saturday mornings, afternoons and evenings
o Sunday afternoons and evenings
In addition, congestion can occur on weekdays, when weather conditions are not conducive for
beach-goers.
9-1
Traffic congestion has significantly limited the ability of autos, trucl~, buses, taxis and
emergency vehicles to travel to each of these areas, and to travel "downtown" area roads as
well. Congestion on these roadways impairs the ability of bicyclists and pedestrians to circulate
freely within these areas.
9.2 PARKING
In each of these areas, on-street parking exists on State roadways in the heart of thc downtown
business district. Typically, on-street spaces are occupied first; then off-street parking areas,
including those behind stores are utiliTed. This is typical of conditions occurring on weel~nds
and 'bad weather' weekdays in Fa~t Hampton, Amagansett and Montauk. Although on-street
parking on Route 27 occurs in Wainscott, it is not as prevalent as in the other areas.
Parking conditions in the Village of l~t Hampton are particularly constrained. A significant
amount of parking activity occurs in the 'off-season'. For example, observations made on a
mid-April weelcda_y in the Reutershan parking field (north of Route 27 and west of Newtown
Lane), indicate that the field was over 70 percent utilized.
Parking time restrictions vary in the Villaze. On Railroad Avenue, in the vicinity of the Long
Island Rail Road station, 15 and 30 minute, one hour and seven day restrictions exist. On-street
parking is generally restricted to one hour duration in the heart of the Village. Off-street
parking is generally restricted to two hours duration; with the exception of the Lumber Lane
parking area. This parking area is sub-divided, with thc southerly lot can~ing a r~tfiction of
9-2
24 hours, and the northcrly portion, 14 days. The northerly portion is popular among LIP&
commuters, who apparently utilize the lot for long-term parking prior to boarding the train.
It is not unusual for on-street spaces on Route 27 to be folly occupied to a point west of David's
l~c during peak periods. Similar conditions exist on Newtown Lane and side roads to both
Route 27 and Newtown Lane. Spaces in the lot near the A&P, northwest of the Route
27/Newtown Lane intersection, are unavailable as weal. Village enforcement agents are diligent
in marking tires of parked cars in an attempt to strictly enforce parking restrictions to maximize
parking availability.
9.3 PEDF_STRIAN TRAVEL
As stated previously, congestion on main downtown roads, particularly in the Vilhge of East
Hampton, result in difficulties in pedestrians' ability to cross roadways when travelling to
downtown businesses, and to and from parking areas. In East Hampton Village, there are
pedestrian crossing signals at the Route 27/Newtown Lane intersection. Significant volumes of
pedestrians crossing these roads inhibit the movement of turning vehicles, which must yield to
pedestrians, causing queues of turning vehicles. Marked 'mid-block* crossw~lir* exist at several
locations in the downtown area on Route 27 and Newtown !~ne, and some of these are
supplemented with signs advising motorists to yield to crossing pedestrians.
Simihrly, traffic flow on Route 27 in the business districts of Wainscott, Amagansett and
Montank inhibits the ability of pedestrians to cross the road. There are no traffic signals in these
9-3
hamlets. However, designated erosswnlirs exist on Route 2'/.
9.4 N~.~BS AND DEFICIENC~.~
In the Village of ~*t Hampton, parking conditions in the pe~lc summer period have reached a
critical stage. Daily parking fees for non-resident vehicles parking for more than a day in the
Lumber Lane field have been proposed. This controver~in! proposal was developed in order to
make more spaces available for shoppers.
The Village has, over the years, spent considerable funds in the development of parking in the
business area. As there is little sp~e available for parking expansion, management of parking
demand in the Village has become essential. Some tactics to manage parking demand are
described in Section 12.2. These techniques are applicable in other areas where summer parking
shortages occur, such as Amagansett.
9.5
RF, CO~ATIONS
Due to limited spoce to provide addilional parking spaces in the core of the Village of East
Hampton, establishment of remote parking fields, or "fringe' parking, would appear to be a
promising technique to manage parking demand. Fringe lots could be constructed, or they could
be established within existing, under-utilized parking areas. This technique is desirable in other
areas of the Town, such as Amagansett, where parking is constrained.
9-4
It is imperative that transportation be provided from these lots to business areas. Shuttle bus
service can readily be established from pick-up points in these areas Io "downtown' business
dislricts. Fringe parking can alleviate traffic congestion in these districts by reducing the
number of vehicles circulating the area in search of parking spaces.
Fringe parking should be established at the following locations:
o In the vicinity of the Town's airport in WainscoR
o At Town Hall
o In the Amagansett area, possibly near the railroad station, or by expansion of the existing
municipal parking area in the center of the business district.
In conjunction with establishment of these parking areas, shuttle bus service should be instituted
in peak periods. The results of the trial summer shuttle service should be reviewed to determine
passenger reaction, predict ridership, and prioritize establishment of these parking areas.
Pedestrian safety is a potential problem in 'downtown* districts, as well as in residential areas.
In business areas such as East Hampton Village, pedestrians compete with vehicles, both at
intersections and at mid-block locations. Crossing Route 27 without use of pedestrian signals,
as provided at a signalized intersection, can be very difficult. Consideration should be given to
installation of traffic signals at mid-block locations with high pedestrian crossing activity.
9-5
Along Town collector roads in residential aras, the lack of sidewalks or 'safety paths' results
in pedestrian traffic utilizing the roadway pavement. In conjunction with the recommended
annual highway program to improve Town roads, conslruction of sidewalks where appropriate
should occur.
9-6
10.0 BICYCT
Bicycle use is becoming inc~e~i,~gly important on Long Island, both for recreational use and
as a means to commute to work in favorable weather conditions. In the Town of l:~gt Hampton,
recreational bicycle use is widespread in the peak tourist sea.son, among visitors and residents
alike. Long Island bicycle organiT~_tions frequently hold weei~md 'tours' on Eastern Long
Island.
10.1 CURRENT AND PLANN~.D BICYCLE FAClLrr~-q
Means of accommodating bicycles can be described as follows:
Bicycle lane - A portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, pavement markings
and signing for the preferential use of bicyclists.
Bicycle path - A path that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space
or barrier and may be in the highway right-of-way or an independent right-of-way.
Bicycle route - A system or network of roads, streets, paths or ways that are open to bicycle
travel and that have been designated by the jurisdiction(s) having authority with appwpriate
directional and informational route markers (w/th or without a specific bicycle route number).
Established bicycle routes should provide for continuous wuting between logical termini.
Shared roadway - A roadway which may or may not be designated and marked as a bicycle
route but which is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel and upon which no bicycle lane
is desiguated. Examples may include roads with wide curb lanes and roads with shoulders.
10-1
Shown on F. xhibit 10-1 are pioi.osed bicycle mutes in the Towns, as prepared by the Group for
the South Fork. The State Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the Towns of East
Hampton and Southampton, will establish a major east-west bicycle route through portions of
the two Towns. The route will feature a dedicated bicycle path adjacent to the Long Island Rail
Road fight-of-way in both Towns.
The remainder of the mutes shown on Exhibit 10-1 are a 'wish list' for the establishment of
bicycle facilities in the Town. These would include bicycle lanes, paths and routes as well as
shared roadways.
10.2 N~S AND DEFICIENCI~.q
Prior to implementing the proposed facilities identified in Exhibit 10-1, review of existing road
conditions is requi~d. This will ensure that pavement widths are appropriate m accommodate
bicycle routes and lanes, and that proper signs are erected to alert motorists to the presence of
bicyclists. It may be desirable to widen roadways to construct shoulder/bike lanes on these
roads.
h is important to instruct young riders on the 'roles of the road' for bicycling; this should be
a formal part of elementary and junior high school cirriculum.
More bicycle racks az= needed at beaches, shopping areas and train stations.
10-2
GRAPHIC SCALE
DRAj
BATHING BEACH
~ ~:~: r: --r*- BATHING BEACH ~: BATHING~CH BATHING B
~' ' W/ FAC HTIES } ,;~ W/ FACIHTIES W/ FACII,IT
BATHING BEACH - ~ ~
*~ .. ~ [ PROPOSED BIKE ~S RTE 27 RTE 114
~w S~BOL DESC~P~0N ~(EDGEMERE/F~IN~ A~.)(THREE ~ H~OR RB.)
: ¢ .~s SY~0L DESCRI~ON ~MBOL DESCRIPTION
~,v,,c ' ~ POI~S OF IN, REST ~ POST OFFICE ~ SCHOOL
'' ~ T~N ~ATION ~ ~R~Y A MUSEUM
10.3 RECOMblF, NDATION$
Implement a system of bicycle lanes, paths and routes to promote safe bicycle travel in the
Town. Establishment of these mutes should be preceeded by a study of the affected roadways
to determine whether appropriate pavement widths and signs can be provided to establish the
facilities.
A bicycle education effort should be encouraged. Additional bicycle racks should be provided
at beaches and shopping areas. Bicycle racks or lockers should be installed at train stations.
In conjunction with improvements identified in Section 5.0 for the Town's bus system, buses
should have the capability of transporting bicycles. Recognizing the fact that this is a difficult
task with existing equipment, perhaps buses with this capability can be gradually ~phased-in"
10-3
11.0 OTHER MODES OF TRAVEL
11.1 TAXIS
Taxi and limousine service within the Town is provided by private companies. Taxis meet LIRR
trains at the Town's train stations. Taxi service can also be arranged by telephone.
There is no regulation of taxi service in the Town. Fares can vary significantly, both by locale
($5.00 flat rate within the Montauk area, metered service in other areas) by season (reports of
summer fares 50 percent higher than winter for the same fide), and by taxi company.
11.2 ROLI.k'~BLADING
Rollerblading has become a very popular recreational activity on the Town's roadways,
particularly in the summer season. Concerns of residents, primarily safety-related, have been
expressed at Citizens Advisory Committee meetings in Springs, Wainscott, and AmaganseR.
Most of the concerns cited observations of individuals skating two or more-abreast on the
roadway pavement.
The Town is considering adoption of a local law on bicycles and skates (roller skates, in-line
skates and skateboarding) that would:
o Reinforce certain provisions of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law requiring
bikes and skaters to stay to the right in single file, and prohibiting attachment to vehicles.
11-1
O
O
Inclusion of these provisions in the local law will enable Traffic Control Officers to
enforce them.
Prohibit skating in downtown areas of Amagansett and Montauk.
Prohibit skating on Route 27 and certain other roadways with significant traffic volumes.
Prohibitions of skating in certain areas would appear to be in conffict with Sections 1231 and
1234 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which states that skaters have the same fights az bicyclists.
Bicycle travel is currently restricted on controlled-access roads only.
It should be noted that rinks where skaters can safety practice their sport exist in the Town, and
new facilities have been proposed.
11.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Regulation of taxi service and fares is required. This will enable proper publicity of senfice
areas and fares to be made available to the public, and encourage use of taxis. These measures
will optimize the effectiveness of the taxi system az a component of the Town's transportation
system.
The Town should adopt a pwposed local hw regarding rollerbhding and skating which
reinforces the State's Vehicle and Traffic Law. Public education on these modes of travel
should also be incorporated into the curriculum of local schools.
11-2
12.0 DEMAND MANAGEMENT
In the last tea year~, more attention has been focused on the need to reduce 'demand" on the
transportation infrastructure in the United States. Previously, attention has been focused
primarily on the 'supply" of adequate highway facilities to handle existing development and
future growth. Recently, the realization that the capacity of the highway network has been
outpaeed by traffic growth from both development and vehicle registration increases has resulted
in efforts to reduce demands on the system.
As evidenced by the historical growth in summer traffic in thc Town, F~t Hampton has far
outpaced the normal traffic growth in the Western Towns of Suffolk County. The latter growth
is typically less than 3 percent annually; F~t Hampton's summer traffic growth has exceeded
an ~ of 6 percent annually since 1965 on Route 27, and 8 percent overall. The result of
this growth can be seen in the estimation of existing summer levels of service on the highway
system (on Exhibit 8-11) and at key intersections (Table 8-2).
These results indicate that ]~st HampWn is at a critical point in time, as far as managing demand
on its transportation system is concerned. Current summer conditions will continue to
deteriorate rapidly, if subject to future annual growth similar to that experienced since 1965.
Consistent with the recent national focus on reducing "demand" on the transportation system
rather than increasing the "supply" of highway lanes, public input obtained in the preparation
12-1
of this report has stressed the desire not to widen roadways in the Town. Construction of new
roadways, particularly bypass mutes to Route 27, were once a highly debated topic in East
Hampton and are the subject of considerable discussion in the 1966 Comprehensive
Transpo~alion Plan. Today, public consensus is slrongly against construction of new bypass
mutes. While public sentiment on construction of new ro~ls and addilional lanes is primarily
based on maintaining the rural character of life in the Town, which is being threatened by the
yearly increases in traffic volumes, it is reinforced by the 1990 Federal Clean Ai~ Act
Amendments.
12.1 CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMi;~NTS
The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act amendments added a sense of urgency to the efforts of demand
management. Under the law, places in the United States which are in federal #non-attainment"
areas were to be included in a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Suffolk County was included
in non-attainment areas for both ozone and carbon monoxide. Suffolk's ozone non-attainment
was classified as severe and the carbon monoxide level as moderate. The SIP details measures
to reduce vehicle miles of travel (VIvlT), thereby reducing congestion and vehicle emissions.
A region's transportation program must be in conformance with the SIP; furthermore, individual
component projects of the project (i.e. a region's Transportation Improvement Program) must
also be in conformance with the SIP.
The emphasis of ~he Clean Air Act was to improve air quality by reducing traffic congestion
~hrough a reduction in vehicle miles of travel. It was anticipated that a combination of measures
12-2
would be ~_~_~ry to achieve the goal of reduced congestion, and in turn, reduced vehicle
emissions, through a reduction in vehicular trips.
Because of the "severe' ozone non-attainment classification for Suffolk County, each employer
of 100 or more people was to develop a plan to increase work-trip vehicle occupancy by 25
percent by November 1994. By November 1996, employers were to have demonstrated
compliance with the plan. The law did not dictate the specific measures to be utilized in
achieving the vehicle occupancy goals.
In 1996, however, these measures, known as Employee Commute Options (F. CO), were made
voluntary. A limited amount of funding is provided by the NYSDOT through its Long Island
Region Improving Commuting (LIRIC) grant program, which is intended to encourage major
employers to implement voluntary ECO programs. Proposals for LIRIC grants are solicited each
fall and projects which show the greatest promise to reduce vehicular traffic are chosen for
funding for a period not to exceed two years. Although the number of 100-employee businesses
in the Town is scarce, some of the voluntary techniques such as ridesharing, and alternative
work hours may help to reduce demand on ~:~t Hampton's highway system.
12.2 DEMAND MANAG~ TECHNIQUF. S
Some of the key demand management techniques include growth management, negotiated
demand management agreements, trip reduction ordinancez, fidesharing, alternative work hours
and telecommufing. An overview of each of these techniques follows:
12-3
o GROWTH MANAG~
This technique involves the use of public policy to regulate the location, pattern, density, quality
and growth rate of development. By controlling types of land use allowable in an area, new
vehicular trips can be limited to a level consistent with the capacity of the roadway infrastructure
and a desirable level of service. Examples of growth management legislation are the
Montgomery County, Maryland, Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, and Florida's Omnibus
Growth Management Act. The Montgomery County procedure involves the annual
determination of traffic generated by existing and approved development, and an assessment of
the roadway infrastructure's ability to accommodate the additional traffic at a selected level of
service. If available capacity exists for a particular development project, it can be approved;
if not, the project must wait for capacity, or it must include construction of the additional
capacity. The 1995 Florida legislation is similar in that growth cannot occur unless adequate
roadways are provided to accommodate it. Local governments must develop comprehensive
plans, land development regulations and level of service standards. Florida's plan also includes
growth management of educational facilities and utilities by similar means.
o NEGOTIATED DEMAND MANAGF2/IF_,NT AGR~I~.MENTS
This technique involves negotiation of traffic mitigation agreements on a project-by-project basis.
These agreements detail the means of reducing potential vehicular trips for a proposed
development to a pre-determined goal. The measures employed may be left up to the developer,
or, in some instances, such as in Los Angeles, may be stipulated by the government agency.
Montgomery County requires an irrevocable bond or letter of credit be posted to 'guarantee"
12-4
forecasted trip reduction.
On a smaller scale, the Town practiced this form of demand management in its 1996 adoption
of legislation pertaining to "superstores", which are defined as retail stores over 15,000 square
feet in size. The Town initially passed a moratorium on approval of #superstores" in order to
enable a study assessing their effects to be completed. An application for a 34,000 square foot
supermarket was the reason for commissioning this study.
The study concluded that, in order to achieve the following objectives, a 25,000 square font
store, to be located only within Central Business District zoning, would be appropriate:
o Minimize *sprawlh type of development, outside of currently established business
districts, which would encourage additional automobile trips on congested roadways.
o Encourage developments in Central Business Districts, where other modes of travel such
as bus, pedestrian, and bicycle~ can be utilized more readily.
o Minimize the potential for use of bypass routes to access these developments.
o TRIP I~DUI.'nON ORDINANCES
Trip reduction ordinances are enacted by local governments to reduce traffic from future
development. Examples of these ordinances are those that stipulate percentages of new trips to
be made on modes other than single-occupancy vehicles (e.g. carpooling, vanpooling, transit),
or permit specific maximum percentages of a project's total trips which may occur during the
12-5
peak highway hour. Most of these plans apply to both existing and new developments, exempt
residential uses, and pre~ribe traffic mitigation goals without specifying the measures to meet
the goals. Most do not, however, provide penalties for failure to attain desired trip reduction
goals.
o P.]DESHARING
Ridesharing includes carpooling, vanpooling and buspooling. Locally, Long Island Rideshafing
has been successful in providing assistanee in establishing caq)oois and vanpools for Long Island
businesses and has set up annual Ridershare Weeks to encomage use of carpools and mass
Wansit.
Ridesharing functions best if thc riders are given incentives such as preferential parking
treatment, e.g. reserved spaces at their destinations. Some fu'ms have implemented lunch time
van service to eating establishments and 'guaranteed rides home' for carpool members in case
of emergencies.
o ALTERNATIVE WORK HOURS
The use of alternative work hours, such as staggered hours, "flex time", and a compressed work
week serves to reduce peak hour traffic. With staggered hours, different groups of employees
begin and end work at different times. "Flex time" allows employees some freedom in choosing
their daily work hours. Compression of the work week (e.g. from five- 8 hour days to four-
10 hour days) is another example of alternlfive work hours.
12-6
o TF.T-F. COMMUTING
Telecommuting involves permitting employees to work at home, and providing them with a
communications link with their ba~iness office. The link may take the form of a comPuter
modem, facsimile (fax) machine or telephone, and can be used to transmit the work product to
the office, and inslructions to the home. As a result, telecommuling can significantly reduce the
number of home-to-work trips required by the employee.
This technique, while normally effective, may have some negative effects in the Town. There
is a significant segment of *semi-commuters' included within the summer populace in the Town.
These 'semi-commuters' travel to ~t Hampton on the weekend, returning to permanent
residences in New York City and elsewhere on Long Island during the week. The
telecommuting option for this segment would appear to benefit peak travel conditions by
eliminating the weekly trip to and from Fast Hampton, but has the potential to increase daily
weelra~y trips for recreational and shopping purposes.
o PARKING MANAG~
In business districts, parking management tactics can be useful in optimizing land available for
parking, reducing numbers of vehicles circulating through, and between, parking fields, and
reducing walking distances for pedestrians. In established areas, such as thc Village of East
Hampton, these techniques can be highly controversial, as the needs of merchants, residents and
visitors are often in conflict. A succint summary of Parking Management Tactics, taken from
12-7
'TABLE 12-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Mm=
--Bus
--
Source: John Dire,mo, et al, Study of Parking Mnn.~ment Tacti~, U.S. DOT Report DOT-FH-I 1-9537, December 1979
the Institute of Transportation Engineers' publication, 'A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic
Congestion', is shown on,Table 12-1.
In proximity to both the Village of l:~t Hampton and Amagansett, it would appear that fringe
parking, such as that proposed on a weekend trial basis at Town Hall in conjunction with shuttle
bus service, could be successful. The fringe parking area would offer the benefit of increasing
be~.._ch and business district parking space, while at the same time removing vehicles from those
are~.
The applicability of other techniques is subject to further discussion among Village and ToWn
representatives, merchants, residents and visitors. The Village of l~a~t Hampton currently is
very diligent in enforcing existing parking regulations.
APPLICABLE TECHNIQUES FOR EAST HAMPTON
l~-~st Hampton's summer highway traffic conditions are predominantly determined by the
magnitude of traffic volumes generated by tourism. As a result, the implementation of the
aforementioned traditional demand management techniques, which focus primarily on current
employer-generated traffic and future development, only addresses a l~ortion of the problem.
As Uaffic conditions on the Town's highway system have reached critical levels, restrictive
controls on traffic generated by future land development, while necessary, are not sufficient to
ensure that traffic conditions do not deteriorate any further. A continuation of recent summer
traffic increases (which are on the order of 8 percent per year), even under a moratorium on
12-$
future land development, will cause an expansion of congested highway segments and more
wide. mad use of local, residential bypass mutes.
Consequently, to attempt to accommodate ever-increasing summer traffic, more reliance must
be placed on modes of Uansportation other than thc automobile. In addition to increasing
mobility of the travelling public, improvements to the Town's existing bus, rail and bicycle
facilities will improve air quality in conformity with the goals of the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments and the new Intermodai Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Rail and
bus vehicles have the capability of moving greater numbers of travellers than the automobile,
while removing a significant number of automobiles from the road, and increasing the average
speed of the remaining vehicles on the road. While the implementation of improved,
coordinated rail and bus service, serving commuters, shoppers and beach-goers alike, is a
daunting task, the Town has limited options which will adequately address the problem of traffic
congestion.
It is apparent that other techniques, such as "auto restricted" zones and the imposition of tolls
(i.e. "congestion pricing") would have limited support among Town residents. "Auto-restricted"
zones in downtown areas may have some applicability on less heavily-travelled mutes than Route
27; a likely result of their implementation would be a shift in traffic to other, less desirable
mutes. Route 27 is the only viable route to Mentauk, and must maintain that function on its
mute through downtown areas on the South Fork.
12-9
There have been p~s to crentc a major multi-modal transportation center on the South
Fork, perhaps at Gabreski Airport in Westhampton. Thc center would accommodate vast
mounts of vehicles for long-term parking. Motorists could transfer to frequent rail or bus
service to continue their trip easterly. The imposition of a toll, perhaps at the Shiunecock Canal,
which is crossed only by the Long Island Rail Road, Sunrise Highway (Route 27 at that point)
and Montauk Highway, would encourage transfer to other modes of travel. The toll could be
variable, i.e. increased during peak periods of congestion, such as Friday and Sunday evenings.
Residents could obtain a 'pass* for an annual fee to allow them to bypass toll lanes.
Principal drawbacks to this scheme include a lack of local support, and uncertainty regarding
its effectiveness in terms of establishing toll rates sufficient to remove significant amounts of
vehieles from the highways.
12.4 RECObiE4~IDATIONS
The Town is at a "crossroads" in terms of managing demand on its transportation system, as
evidenced by summer traffic growth on its highway system over the last 30 years. Future
strategies must focus on diverting automobile trips to other modes of travel, particularly rail and
bus, and tnki~g all possible measures to ensure that new, future trips occur on modes other than
auto.
Naturally, future land development will continue to occur, in conformance with the ~vised
Town Land Use Plan. Any future development will generate additional trips on thc highway
12-10
system, an undesirable condition based on the current summer levels of service on roadways,
and at intersections in the' Town. Due to the critical capacity conditions of the roadway
network, it is recommended that, any future development causing a deterioration equal in
magnitude to a full level of service at any intersection or highway segment (as defined in the
Highway Capacity Manurd) not be permitted. In addition, any proposed modifications to the
highway system as a result of any such development should conform to the following criteria.
These criteria were established as a result of consistent, public input during the course of this
study, and are based on the desire to maintain the Town's rural character:
o No new roads with the potential for attracting 'bypass* traffic should be constructed.
o No addilional through travel lanes should be constructed on existing roads.
o No additional traffic signals should be installed.
o Potential traffic growth on existing bypass routes should be minimized.
It is hoped that these criteria will avoid further, major deterioration of summer conditions on the
Town's roadways, while encouraging developers to maximize the capacity of other modes of
transportation to accommodate new trips.
This approach is a form of Growth Management, in that it is based on a determination of
available highway capacity for new development projects. It is more restrictive than traditional
Omwth Management techniques, because it places a limit on roadway improvements based on
the Town's rural nature. The Town should conaider local legislation to formalize this Demand
Management Technique.
12-11
13.0 LAND USE PLAN
13.1 ~.L&TIONSRn~ TO TRANSI~ORTATION
The Town of N:~t Hampton is in the process of revising its Land Use Plan. The current Land
Use Plan was initially prepared in 1984. The revised plan will establish a basis for future
zoning in the Town.
Since generation of trips on highways and transit facilities is dependent upon specific land uses,
existing and future land uses and transportation are fundamentally interrelated. Iznd uses such
as single family homes and condominiums will generate significantly less trips than commercial
uses in an equal area of land. Thus the Town can utilize its revised Land Use Plan to create
zoning conditions which will minimize future impacts on its strained highway system.
The Town's current Land Use Plan has already established vast amounts of open space uses, for
recreational, aesthetic, environmental, agricultural, and water supply purposes. Specific business
districts have been classified as central, neighborhood, waterfront and resort. Industrial areas
have been established, primarily around the Town airport, between Springs and F~t Hampton
Village, and along the LIRR west of~*t Hampton Village and in Montauk. Residential zoning
of two, three and five acres, which have the least transportation impact, exist in many less-
developed areas of the Town.
13-1
In its current Land Use Plan, the Town has already taken steps to reduce the "sprawl" type of
growth prevalent in other areas of Long Island. That growth occurred largely due to years of
building additional highways to address skyrocketing linear growth in automobile usage. A
cyclical condition was created, i.e. as more highways were built, linear growth occurred along
the highways rather than in specific major growth centers. The growth, in mm, mandated more
highway conslruction to accommodate new traffic generation. This type of growth, duc to its
low density, severely limited the ability of mass transit to serve as a viable alternative for most
Long Islanders.
13,2 RECO~ATIONS
The Town, in its revised Land Use Plan, should continue its effort to generally concentrate more
intense land uses near downtown areas in Wainscott, Amagansett, and Montauk. Every effort
should be made to promote future 'neo-traditional' types of developments in these areas. 'iNco-
traditional" neighborhood develOPment is a "rebirth" of the traditional American concept Of a
"small Town". This type of develOPment attempts to create an environment which affords less
reliance on automobile travel. Retail, office and multi-family residential uses are concentrated
in a mini-downtown area. Some area is left open for parks and community use. Less dense
residential uses generally surround the more-developed downtown.
This type of development encourages pedeslrian and bicycle usage to the downtown area, from
the surrounding resideollzl uses. In addition, establishment of a concentrated core area of
retail/office uses facilitates service by bus or rail modes of travel to other, similar, downtown
13-2
areas. Thus, there is significant potential to remove vehicular trips from the highway system in
this neo-traditional neighborhood, or mini~center, type of development.
Consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan's encouragement for each hamlet to provide
services for its residents, this type of development would help reduce trips between hamlets.
Since the framework for these developments already exists in the Town's current Land Use Plan,
it is recommended that land usc and zoning modifications further encourage nco-traditional
neighborhood developments, as a means of further reducing reliance on automobile travel within
the Town. It is important that the Village of East Hampton and Sag Harbor adopt similar
policies, as the Villages already contain large downtown areas, which have the greatest potential
for improved service by bus and/or rail modes of travel, as well as increased pedestrian and
bicycle usage.
13-4
14.0
REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
I~I~,&TIONSHIP TO SOLrI'HAMFI'ON 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
14.1
UPI)ATE
The Town of Southampton is located immediately west of the Town of I:~st Hampton. The
Village of Sag Harbor lies in both Towns. Due to its geographical location, Southampton serves
as the summer gateway to the South Fork of Long Island. All vehicular traffic destined for East
Hampton must pass through the Town of Southampton or the Village of Sag Harbor.
Southampton's transportation needs and deficiencies are very similar to those in East Hampton.
As a result, the transportation goals of Southampton's (draft) Comprehensive Plan Update (see
Exhibit 14-1) are consistent with those of this Plan.
The proximity of Southampton dictates that recommendations be made in thc various other
sections of this report be reviewed in light of potential effects in Southampton. This is
particularly hue for thc bus and rail systems, which serve the South Fork as an entity, rather
than each Town individually.
The "South Fork Bike Path" will be shared between the two Towns. The Path will run adjacent
to the entire length of the LIRR righi-of-way in Southampton, and will continue in this fashion
in ~st Hampton to Amagansett..
14-1
A VISION FOR TRANSPORTATION
TO CREATE HORE CHOICES FOR RESIDENTS IN HOW THEY TRAVEl. TO AND THROUOH TOWN, AND TO CREATE: A
TRANSPORTATION SYSTENI THAT WORKS IN TANDE:H WITH [.AND USE: TO PRI[$E:RVE: A LAND$CAIWE~ OF RURAL ROADS
WITH DI$TINCT VILLAOE AND HAF4LE'F CI~NTERS.
VISION GOALS:
I) Streets: Better management, classification and improvement
of the existing infrastructure, rather than new highways and
arterials.
2) Traffic calming: Acknowledge the joint use of streets by
bicycles and pedestrians in addition to motor vehicles in all future
street and traffic planning.
3) Bicycling and walking: Create a predictable, safe, and
ubiquitous bicycling and walking network, initially targeted for
recreational use but eventually accommodating utilitarian use as
well.
4) Trains and Long-Distance Buses: Enhance sen/Ices and
amenities that increase ridershlp and rider satisfaction especially
targeted to meeting peak summer demand.
5) Local Public Transport: In the short term, emphasize buses
and beach access, but in the long term, build an infrastructure to
increase year-round commuter and utilitarian use.
6) Inlarmodah Make transfers between modes (bus/train,
train/bicycle, car/train, etc.) seamless.
7) Land Use: Strengthen shopping and other activities in
village and hamlet centers, to reduce the need for automobile
trips; assure that these centers are convenient to get to; but
within the centers, put the priority on pedestrians, not
through, traffic.
8) Scenery: Improve how residents and visitora perceive
the experience of traveling on Southampton's streets, by all
forms of transportation.
9) Regional perspective: Seek inter-municipal,
inter-governmental and public/private partnerahips at two
scales: to solve specific problems on specific streets; but
also to seek alternatives to deal with what are in fact regional
problems.
14.2 EAST EIVD ISSUES
The Five Pa~t End Towns (Pa*t Hampton, Southampton, Riverhead, Southold and Shelter Island)
share many transportation concerns. An ~t End Transportation Council has been formed by
the l~t End Supervisors and Mayors Association, with the mandate to develop short and long-
term recommendations for each mode of transportation. Issues to be addressed include:
o LACK OF AN Aul'lVE, REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORT
The designated Me~epolitan Planning Organization for the New York City area is the New York
Metropoli~m Transportation Council (NYMTC). The area includes all of New York City and
Nassau, Suffolk, Roclrhad, Westchester and Putnam Counties. Representing the Nassau-Suffolk
Area is the Nassau/Suffolk Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC). TCC representatives
include officials from the State and the two Counties. It is the TCC that holds public meetings
to establish the Region's five-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which identifies
all transportation projects utilizing Federal, State and County funding. Inclusion in the TIP is
a pre-requisite for obtaining Federal and State funding.
Historically, the ovea~vhelming majority of Suffolk County TIP projects have been conceived and
implemented in the five Western Towns. Typically, this area experiences more year-round
congestion than that on the l~t End. There has, however, been a lack of recognition of the
nee~__ to address summer congestion on thc P~*t End, in terms of assigning funds for project
implementation. While this has undoubtedly been partially due to a lack of participation in the
TiP process by the individual East End Towns, the lack of a concerted, overall East End
14-2
transportation planning effort has also been responsible.
A case in point is the NYSDOT's assignment of its planning for the area to Albany rather than
its regional Hauppauge office because of the "rural# nature of the region. Since the summer
traffic congestion on the ~t End is an "u~an" condition experienced in an otherwise rural
NYSDOT is currently conducting the Long Island Transportation Study to Manage Congestion
to address all modes of transportation on Long Island. NYSDOT's recent addition of a
representative from the entirely rural portion of Suffolk County (the Towns of Southold, Shelter
Island and ~*t Hampton) to complement representation from the Towns of Southampton and
Riverhend is a positive measure.
o RAIL SYSTEM
There is frustration among F~t End residents regarding service provided by the Long Island
Rail Road, on its Montauk and Main Line (Oreenport) branches. The railroad serves several
downtown areas of the F~t End, and thus could be utilized to reduce the reliance on summer
automobile travel through increased local service. F~t Enders understand the LIRR's reasons
for an inability to provide more frequent train service. These include lack of track capacity in
the East River tunnel lending to Perm Station, existence of single track system on the East End,
and limited numbers of locomotives and cars. However, these conditions should not preclude
14-3
a study of the LIRR's approach to service on the F~st End, with regard to institution of "shuttle"
type service on the North and Scoth Forks. This concept was. identified as an action
recommendation in the 1993 report, 'Blueprint for Our Future (the report to Governor Marlo
Cuomo)' by the F~st End Economic and Environmental Task Force and is supported in
'Southampton Tomorrow.'
Perhaps the LIRR's recently announced plans to seek funding for completion of the rail link to
Grand Central terminal can result in a long-term increase in frequency of rail service to the N~t
End. In any event, the scope of the Comprehensive Rail Study recommended in Section 4.4
should be expanded to include the North Fork (i.e. LIRR Main Line) as well.
o FERRIES
The future extent of ferry service to the East End of Long Island is a controversial issue. While
ferry service at first glance seems to be desirable in that il has the potential to reduce reliance
on the automobile, ther~ are certain other considerations that will determine whether this mode
of travel has future viability.
Ferry service on the ~ End can be classified as follows:
o Intra-P~,t End service, such as existing service from North Haven and Greenpon
to Shelter Island
o Service to New England, such as existing service to Orient Point from New
London
14-4
The Town of Southold has experienced problems with the existing private ferry service form
Orient Point to New London. The 1995 expansion from a passenger/vehicular ferry service to
include higher-speed passenger-only service, with a bus link to a Connecticut casino, has caused
parking problems in the vicinity of the Orient ferry terminal. The Town is currently involved
in litigation stemming from the leto/ company's application for a change of zone to allow
construction of parking near the terminal.
It is clear that parking impacts, as well as those to thc adjacent highway network, must be
thoroughly investigated before any new ferry service to the l~t End is established. Otherwise,
any apparent benefit, such as the ability of a Sag Harbor passenger ferry to move weekend
travellers to the l~t End without using automobiles, could be negated.
o BUS SYSTEM
The l~,t End Towns share the following needs, with regard to public bus transit:
o Better publicity of existing service
o More frequent service on existing routes
o Extended hours of service, both daily and on weekends
o Improved coordination with rail service, employment areas, shopping districts,
and private bus service
14o-5
o Need for new summer feeder service and extension of summer service to year-
round service on some mutes
'o Need for service to recreational ar~
The Towns recognize the fact that the existing Suffolk Transit System requires significant
subsidies in order to continue in operation. On a short-term basis, there is a n__~ed_ for the Towns
to establish dialogue with Suffolk Transit in order to address the needs identified above.
14.3 RECOMM~-NDATIONS
A concerted planning effort for the five East End Towns is required to raise awareness of
summer traffic concerns on the l~t End, and identify viable studies and projects for
implementation to address the concerlls. Thc following recommendations should be
implemented:
o Conduct a comprehensive study of the current and future functions to be served by the
Long Island Rail Road on the l~t End, including:
o Service to New York City
o Inlra-P~st End Service (i.e. "Shuttle' and/or light rail sea'vice)
o Coordination with other modes of travel, including bus, taxi, bicycle, pedestrian
and automobile
A similar comprehensive study of the public bus system, incoo~uorating private bus
service, should be undertaken, addressing the needs identified in Section 14.2.
14-6
A study of potential new ferry service on the Past End, identifying the requirement that
negative impacts to existing modes of travel (including automobile and pedestrians) must
be addressed, should be undertaken.
The Towns should work together in developing a regional bicycle facility plan.
14-7
15.0
FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific recommendations for improvements in all modes of O'ansporlation appear in each section
of lifts report. Key recommendations are summarized in Table 15-1.
A major funding source of transportation improvements on Long Island has been the 1991
Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The act is expiring in the Fall of
1997, to be replaced by NEXTHA (National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency
Act). It is anticipated that many of the funding sources of ISTEA will be retained, and that
more intermodai projects will be eligible for funding under NEXTEA. ISTI/A had authorized
federal aid, highway and transit programs for six years, at a tolal funding level of $155 billion.
While the goal was to increase funding for highway projects by 63 percent, transit programs
were to see a 91 percent increase. Financing was provided by extending Highway Trust Fund
revenues, including the 2.5 cent addition to the federal gas tax in December of 1990, through
the end of the decade. The National Highway System was established by ISTEA.
In addition to providing funding increases for highway and mass transit projects, ISTEA was to
provide greater slate and local flexibility in shifting funds between highway and mass transit
projects. For example, up to 50 percent of a state's National Highway System funds were
permitted to be used for other highway programs or for mass transit projects. Under the Surface
Transpo~fion Program, which accounted for 16 percent of ISTEA's total funding, funds could
be used for any surface transportation project.
15-1
TABLE 15-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMFTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
KEY CAPITAL IMPflOVE~4 ENT8
B ~ 20Q~-~QO7
C- Pol~O07
RGD:~'
More empbnql* was placed on planning efforts to improve air quality. ISTEA restricted thc use
of federal funds in Clean Air Act non-attainment areas such as Suffolk County, unless a project
was part of an approved congestion management system.
The Federal Highway Administration has been actively encouraging innovative funding
mechanisms such as private sector takeover and tolling of existing highways, and congestion
pricing, to fund the state and local shares of the cost of highway improvements.
In recent years, the State created dedicated funds for highway, bridge and mass transit use.
E~tablishment of these funds was a first step in ensuring that adequate monies are provided to
deal with the transportation needs of Long Island and New York State.
ISA TRANSPORTATION IMPROV~ PROGRAM (TIP)
Public funding of Long Island's transportation needs is allocated through the Nassau-Suffolk
Transportation Coordinating Committee frcc) process, and results in a regional Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The Nassau-Suffolk TCC is part of the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (NYMTC), which is the metropolitan planning organization for the New
York Metropolitan area. In 1994, the NYMTC produced "Critical Issues-Critical Choices", thc
'Long Range Plan' for the New York Metropolitan area through the year 2015. The plan is
Intended to be used as a guide for updating the TIP, and is scheduled to be updated in 1997.
The plan takes a 'corridor approach' in identifying highway and transit improvements in thc
Region. None of the Ncorridors# are located within the five ~t End Towns.
15-2
The TI~ is a five year capital construction program listing State and local transportation projects
which are funded en~rely or partially with federal aid. For informational purposes, an
addendum to the TIP provides a listing of projects funded entirely by State, County, and other
non-federa~ sources.
Ideally, the TIP is to be updated annually by the TCC which is composed of Federal, State and
local officials. Public input is sought for the TIP update process at Committee meetings. The
TIP must conform with the approved Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Included in the TIP are projects'to cons~'uct or rehabilitate roadways, bridges and railway
facilities, as well as to purchase buses. The TIP indicates the allocated funding sources for each
project, with a breakdown for engineering, right-of-way and construction costs.
The TIP also includes project~ who~e funding is entirely from State or County sources. In the
County's case, funds for these projects are appropriated in the County's Capital Improvement
Program before they are added to the TIP.
Projects are placed on the TIP based on the following criteria:
o Physical condition Of the facility
o Capacity problems
o Safety needs
o Traffic volumes/passenger fidership
1'5 -3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Environmental considerations
Benefits/costs
Economic impact
Community considerations
Impacts on land use
Federal regulations
As noted in Section 8.5, only four projects within the Town currently appear in the TIP for the
next five years.
Typically, the principal ISTEA funding sources utilized in the TII' are:
o National Highway System (NILS)
o Interstate Maintenance Program
o Surface Transportation System (SI'S)
o Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR)
o Sections 3, 9 and 16 of ISTEA (Transit Funding)
Currently, NIlS funds can only be utilized on Route 27. The STS funding offers the greater
potential for funding highway and ~ansit projects within the Town. STS funding includes two
subcategories. The first of these are 'transportation enhancement antivities', which includes
facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, scenic beautification and historic preservation. This
funding accounts for 10 percent of the STP allocation, and is 80 percent federally-funded.
15-4
The second subcategory of STP funds is the Congestion Miligation Air Quality (CMAQ)
program, created to fund those highway and transit projects which can improve air quality in
non-auainment areas, including Suffolk County.
HBRR funds am used to r~habilitate bridges certying vehicular traffic~
In addition to federal funding under ISTEA, State aid has historically been used to implement
highway and Iransit projects. Funding sources include:
o State Dedicated Funds 0tighway)
o State Transit Operating Assistance (STOA)
Federal planning regulations require Transportation System Management ('rSlV0 planning. As
part of this effort, NYSDOT developed the LIRIC grant program to encourage vehicle trip
reduction. Ninety percent of this funding is provided by the Federal HighWay Adminislration.
Pl~vious pwject recipients include marketing efforts for a jitney service to a LIRR rail station,
installation of bicycle lockers at another rail station, and carpool enhancements.
1~.2 TOWN FUNDING
Other than projects listed in the TIP, publicly-funded improvements have been historically
implemented by the Town Highway Dep~huent through its approved annual capital and
maintenance budgets. An extensive number of projects have been completed throughout the
Town in this manner, typically including roadway resurfacing and reconstruction, construction
15-5
of sidewalk/safety paths and drainage improvements.
15.3 PUBLIC/PRIVATI~ PARTNERSHIPS
Other than gasoline tax, general revenue, and bonding sources, transportation improvements can
be funded under what can bo described as the umbrella of 'Public/Private Parmerships~. These
can include the following measures, or combinations of them:
o ASSESSlV[IR. NT DISTRICTS
This is a ~ levy on all property or business owners within a district to finance improvements
which primarily benefit them. The Wax is typically approved by a majority of the owners. The
district can be suppoP, ed by a municipality, which issues revenue bonds for the improvements,
and Waxes owners to repay the bonds. Transportation Improvement Districts (TID) have been
established in business districts in some municipalities, to provide improvements to facilitate
customer access, such as additional parking.
A special assessment district such as a Transportation Development District is one with a
separate governing body, which can Wax, issue bonds and provide services in the district area.
It may be dependent on, or independent of, the local governments which established it. One
such district was established in Hauppauge. Districts could be permitted to sell bonds, accept
and make contributions, contract with other governmental and private entities and carry out
construction. A district master plan addressing the following items is required:
o Existing and proposed traffic conditions
15-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
Land use and zoning reslxictions
Proposed transportation improvements
Cost estimates for proposed improvements
Means of financing the improvements
Required right-of-way purchases
Impact on transportation facilities of other jurisdictions
Successful establishment of these districts is dependent upon community support in the affected
al'e~.
o TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
This method utilizes ~ax revenues from new development to finance improvements in a specified
ares. Typically, improvements are paid for with public funds, then repaid az increased tax
revenues are realized. New York's Municipal Redevelopment Law, primarily acceptable to
urban renewal areas, could be used to set up tax increment financing in undeveloped land areas.
o DEVELOPMENT AGRF-FMENTS
This is a public/private agreement on specific development. A developer agrees to pay for
certain transportation improvements, in exchange for an agreement from the public sector to
streamline the approval proce~.
15-7
The Town's current 'negotiation' practice requires a developer to assess his' project's impact,
possibly including a detailed traffic study, which identifies roadway mitigation measures needed
to accommodate development traffic. After review by the Town, mitigation measures are
discussed and flpsliTed. Required roadway improvements are then constructed by the developer.
15.4 RF~OMMENDATIONS
o PUBLIC FUNDING
The Town should aggressively pursue its fair share of public funding for the highway and transit
projects (including studies) identified in this report, through the TIP process. The Town should
maintain its level of funding for its own highway capital and maintenance projects in future
o PUBLIC/PRIVATE FINANCING
Creation of assessment districts, such as Transportation Improvement Districts, should be
considered where appropriate. These measures may be useful in business districts such as that
in the Village of ~ Hampton, where parking is at a premium. Measures to alleviate parking
shortages, such as instituting shuttle bus service from remote parking areas, could be funded in
this manner.
Other improvements in business areas which benefit merchants as well as the public could be
funded by contributions from both the public and private sector.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
'1~0 Uni~i States Census l~'l~ort', United S~ ~t of Comme~.
'A '2~0' Vi~on-~ C~'s ~ge T~fion P~ (Summa)', Ca~ C~
~m~on, 1~4.
*~ ~yout P~ UpDa~ast ~p~n ~*, C~ ~gin~s, ~c., 1994.
~ Way St~ ~ Study ~) for To~ of B~vm*, L.K. Mc~ As~ia~s,
P.C., 1~6.
~Am~R Co~dor S~dy~, A~I~, Ph~ps, ~i~ ~d Shapiro, Inc. ~d ~d ~ics, Inc.,
1~7.
"~ ~gh~y C~i~ S~dy for Mon~uk, New York", L.K. Mc~ As~ia~, P.C.,
1986.
"A T~l~x for ~g T~fic Cong~on", Insgm~ of T~on Engines,
1989.
"Bluest for ~r Fu~e", P~st ~d ~nomic ~d ~ronmen~ T~k For~ of ~ng Isled,
New York, 1993.
"CI~ ~ Act Am~dmm~", 19~.
"CompUlsive PI~-To~ ~d Vffi~e of F~st H~pton~, 19~.
"Comprehm~ve P~-T~on ~em~t", Ci~ of S~ffie, W~ngton, 1~5.
"Co~cut ~ to ~v~t ~o ~fi~in a ~d", New York Tim~, 1~6.
"Cd~ Issue, C~ Choir, A M~ P~ for ~e New York Region ~ugh ~e Y~
2015", New York M~h~ T~fion Council, 1~4.
"F~si ~p~ Su~store Study", A~, Ph~ps, ~eiss ~d S~, 1996.
"~nmen~ Ac~on P~', New York S~ D~t of T~m~on, 1983.
"F~ A~s Study', Suffo& ~ ~m~t of ~bUc Wor~, T~fion Di~sion,
1~.
"~g~way ~ M~", T~on R~h ~, 1~4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
"Key West-Project Development and Environmental Study', Florida Department of
Transportation, 1996.
"Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan", Town of l~t Hampton.
'Long Island Population Su~,ey', Long Island Lighting Company, 1990.
"Memorandum regarding Regulatory Authority for Water Carriage", Michael McDonald, New
York State Departmenf of Transportation, Passenger Transporiation Division, 1996.
'The Power Broker, Robe~ Moses and the Fall of New York", Robert Cato, 1974.
"Residential Street Design and Traffic Control", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1989.
'Sag Harbor Ferry Goes to the Board', l=~t Hampton Ind _c~endent, 1996.
"Shoreham-New Haven Ferry Feasibility Study', Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
1991.
"Southampton Tomorrow (Transportation)", Draft, Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Ethics,
Inc. and Abeles, Phillips, Preiss and Shapiro, 1996.
"South Fork Transportation Study", Vollmer Associates, 1986.
"Super-Store Legislation Adopted", East Hamoton Indeoendent, 1996.
'Town of Brookhaven Transportation Plan (Draft)", L.K. McI.~an Associates, P.C., 1992.
"Town of Southold vs. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.", New York State Supreme Court Case
No. 95-16263, 1995.
'Traffic Engineering for Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Design", institute of Transportation
Engineers, 1994.
"Transportation Improvement Program 1994-1999", Nassau-Suffolk Transportation Coordinating
Committee.
'Update of Traffic Circulation Plan-Town of Fa.~t Hampton", Suffolk County Department of
Planning, Transportation Division, 1983.
APPENDIX
SUMMARY' OF CITIZENS ADVISORY GOMMITTEE
NEED8 AND CONCERN8
INCO~PORA~IT~D t/I].Y~G~- OF KiST itAMPTON
.MARCH 5TH, 197
KEY: ~ Not Disoussed
I+lS ppo.ed
J++[ 8trong¥ Supported
Caupilation of. data imput frcm:
Circle Association
District One Association
Toilsome Civic Association '
Village Preservation Society
REMARKS
HIGHWAY
Evaluate existing No-Passing Zones on State Highways + - Route 27 & Route 114
Bypass route use is a concern ++ - UNIFIED DESIRE; LIMITED BY-PASS AROLW1
Speeding Vehk:les + - INCREASED 'ENFORCEMENT OF SPEED LAW/S--
Excessive delay, entering Route 27
+ - DURING PEAK SEASONAL PERIOD/S
Need aft turn anes on Route 27 at certain Iocallo. ns ' '
+ - APPLAUD PROPOSED R? 2?/STEPHEN HAND'S
Lack o[ shoulders
No widening ol existing roads + - ONLY TO ACCOMODATE LEFT-'II3RN LANE/S.
No additional traffl~ signals on Route 27 ++ - YES; ET 27 & TOILSOME LANE INTEl{SEC'TIt
FERRY ......
++ '_ OPPOSi.{D TO EITHER HONTAUK OR SAG HARB
Concerned with polentlal traflb generated by propoied
ferqt to Napeague/Montauk ,__ __
Concerned wlth potential traffic generated by proposed ++ - SEE ABOVE '
few to Sag Harbor
VILLAGE
~sisting)
PATH ~ PLAN
( I~jLL s'rGNAY~)
8UMMARY OF CITIZEN8 ADVISORY COMMI'r
NEED8 AND CONCERN8
[IqCO~OP, A]E'E'D VILLAGE OF FAST
Not Discussed
Supported
Strongly 8uppo;iod
. REMARKS ·
RAIL
,ImMove conditions, frequency end .cl~edullng o! ++ - STRONG SOPPORT (h'~ RR/STATION
l existing sewlce to New York City ..... TO .~.%~3P~ POTENTIAL INCREASED RAIL PA~
Need for belter sewice within South Fork +
Coordlrmte rail and bus servlc~
++ - I~t'~:~FACE BUS/RAIL SCHEDULES TO HIGHE~
TOW~IRPORT
No growllt In air service + - NO INCREASE IN PRESENT SCHEDULED AIRLI~
BUS
Establlshyear-~oundsewlceto Monlauk .,. APPLAUD FACT THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED
More Irequent bus eelvlce/coordlnate with employment;
MRR~ Jitney Service
Baiter publicity of bus schedule~ · -- ....
Establish long:term parking at Jituey slops S']~ONG OPPOSTTTON BY REPORT[N(; CONSORT[UH
TAXI8
~;ewlce, ineudlng !ares, should be regulated HEDTOCRE RESPONSE; GOVERNMENT ~--[OULD NOT
2ol3
DEGREE
ACCOMODATION
SUMMARY' OF CITIZEN8 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Nr:Kn8AND CONCERN8 ... KEY: [----~NotDbous~ed.
[I~CO~,I~O~ VTZ.T.~,<]E O1~ EASI~ BAtIFI'ON:' I.+ IBupported
~ Sbongly 8~pporled
~ REMARKS
BIKESIRO LLERBLADERSIPED ESTRIAN8
Safely co~cems along existing roadways _,
Need bike paths +
Buik~axtend "Safety Paths' or sldewalle! +
EMER~IENC¥ 8ERVlCI~8
++ ~H'6'RGENCY 'tT, R.,'~PORTATION V~-~'[CL.~S ~
Congestion on Route 27 causes delays/use o! bypasses "SEASON." QU~"~ON RAISED,~ DEFINE ;USE
DELAYS DURING
OF "BYPASSES'."
TOWN OF mT HIJflMX'ON
TRi]BPORTATXOii PX,,I~I UP-DATI
OOTL'TMB OF PRBBBIIT~TXOIIrt FOR
(~XTXSB~IS ADVXBOBy 4:~MMXTTBBR
X:)ux~ose of PrO'~lect
A. Update of 1966 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
B. Development of Short- and Long-Term Recon~endations for
Improvements in ~?.?~ Modes of Transportation (Auto, rail,
bus, ferry, air, bicycle, pedestrian)
II. Current Status - Identification of Problems
Ao
Field-Data Collection (Traffic Counts) began in August
1996 (Exhibit)
General Trends - Traffic Growth on Montauk Highway
General Trends - Traffic Growth Elsewhere
Traffic Accident History/Development of "High Accident
Locations" (Exhibit)
C. Data Analysis is Continuing
Proposed Montauk Ferry (Hontauk C.A.C.) - Will examine
potential impact of proposed ferry on highway network.
No results yet.
III. Public Input Through:
A. Citizens Advisory Committees Format
1. Perceived Transportation Concerns
2. Potential Feasible Solutions
3. Input Only on Major Concerns to Develop Board-Based
Solutions
IV.
Project Schedule
A. Report to Town Board - April 1997
B. Timetable for Funding/Implementation of Recommendations
V. Receive comments from those Present (FliP Board)
RGD:efr
11/27/96
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
N~-P_u8 AND CONCERN8 ~-Y:~ Not Discussed
~._~ support~
/++l Strongly Supported
8 A
W A M
A G A
M 8 I G
0 P N H A
N R 8 A N
T I C R S
A N 0 B E
U G T 0 T
K S T R T REMARKS
HI--AY
Evaluat~ ex~stin~ No-Passin~ Zones on ~ High~ys ++ ++; ++ ~ ~r~r - ~e 114; ~e 27 - E~m
~m~ba~rn + ++ ++ ++ InWal~,tr~s~l~ec~k-~l~, ~gH~r~r
d~ir~ qm~ ~lmi~ ~ur~.
~i~Ve~s ++ ++ ++ ++ +
~~eme~27 + ++ ++ + Sprl~s~me~r~tom~rntri~Villa~
~ left turn I~ on ~e 27 at ~in ~ns + + + +
~ck ~ s~ul~m ++
~ w~ening ~ e~ing r~s ++ ++ ++ ++ + + Uai~in 'rum[ c~ra~e~ of ~t H~on
No ~d~l Va~= sig~ls on ~e 27 ++ + +
FERRY
~r~ ~ ~l ~F= ~rat~ ~.pm~sed ++ ++ ++
~r~ ~ Na~g~o~uk
~er~ w~ ~e~ ~r~ ~ pm~ ++ ++ D~g~ in ~g Har~r m~rdlng ~-en~r-on~ ~
~r~ ~ ~g ~r
SUMMARY OF CmZEN8 ADVISORY COMMrTI~E
NEED8 AND CONCERN8 KEY:[:~ Not Discussed
I++1 ~.o ngly ~uppom~d
8 A
W A M
A G A
M $ I ~
0 P N H A
N R $ A N
T I C R 8
A N 0 B E
U G T 0 T
K 8 T R T , REMARKS
RAIL
Improveconditiom, fmquency and scheduling of ++ ++ ++ + +
exbtlng sewlce to NewYork City
Need for bette~ sense within South Fork ++ + + +
Coordlnate mil and bus aewice ++ ++ ++ ++
TOWN ~IRPORT
No growth in air service ++
BUS
Establish year-round sen/ice to Montauk ++
More frequent bus eswice/coordinate with employment; ++ ++' ++i ++ Trolley to beach (Wainscott), hub/transfer center (seg Harbor)
LIRR, Jitney Service
set~er publicit7 of bus schedules + + +
Establish Iong-tarm pa~king at Jitney stops +
TAXI8
Service, I~cuding tares, should be regulated ++ ++ Formal 'taxi stands" (Wainscott)
2of3
SUMMARY OF CITIZEN8 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NEED8 AND GONCERN8 KEY:~--~ Not Discussed
~ Sb'ongly Supported
$ A
W A M
A (3 A
M 8 I G
O P N H A
N R $ A N
T I C R S
A N O B E
U G T O T
K S T R T REMARKS
BIKESIFIOLLERBLADERS/PEDESTRIAN8
8afety concems along existing roadways ++ ++ ++ ++
Need blk. paths ++ ++ ++
Build/extend "Safety Paths' or sidewalks , ++ ++
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Congestion on Route 27 causes delays/use of bypasses ++ ++ ++
·OWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION STUDY/PLAN UPDATE
MONTAUK CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
NONTAU~ SCHOOL - 12/2/96
Ray DiBiase addressed the audience pursuant to the attached
presentation outline dated November 27, 1996.
Comments:
public Transportation - Bus Servic~
Ao
Residents would like to see a more reliable and
convenient year-round local service from Bridgehampton to
Montauk. This would also compliment the Jitney and
Hamptons On My Mind service from Manhattan which does not
guarantee service from Bridgehampton east during off-peak
travel. (It was requested that NYSDOT be contacted
regarding guaranteed service under its regulation of the
private bus service).
Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee would like to see
bus stop for Jitney and Hamptons on My Mind relocated
from existing spot (gazebo) to Kirk Park area. Poor
sight distance when parked on Main Street in front of
gazebo. Note: Gall Webb (MVA) does not like Kirk Park
location, but feels MVA concerns (lighting, telephone)
could be mitigated.
Provide bus service that could be utilized by high school
students participating in extra curricular activities.
(East Hampton to Montauk)
D. Railroad station as possible bus stop for Jitney and
Hamptons On My Mind.
2_~. Public Transportation - Railroad
Provide a light rail system from Southampton to Montauk
with a more frequent and convenient schedule.
Improve existing service from Manhattan (greater
frequency, more cars, cleaner cars, improve riding
conditions).
3. Alternative Means of Transoortation - Bicycles
Ao
If bike racks in downtown area were provlded that
guaranteed security from theft or vandalism, more people
w0uld ride their bikes.
Poor riding conditions along Old West Lake Drive,
Lake Drive and Old Montauk Highway.
Ferry
East
Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee wants to see a
thorough analysis of the traffic that a high speed
ferry would generate, and its impact on the capacity of
the roadway system.
Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee feels that a ferry
would cause Montauk to be a "funnel" for vehicle traffic
heading to Connecticut (casino's).
Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee is concerned with
the technology of high speed ferries possibly from
Manhattan to Mort,auk.
Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee does not feel
ferries are an acceptable alternative mode of
transportation.
Try to get traffic count data on the North Fork to
determine the impact of the existing passenger ferry
operation at Orient Point.
F. Six (6) month extension on moratorium for a ferry
terminal.
5. Existinq Road Conditions and Traffic Devices
Intersection of Old Montauk Highway, Second House Road
and Montauk Highway.
Poor sight distance for vehicles heading east onto
Montauk Highway from Old Montauk Highway. Montauk
Citizen's Advisory Committee feels east extension of
Second House Road should not permit left hand turns.
In general, recommends that this intersection be re-
evaluated and the signage changed from "yields" to
"stops" where applicable.
Install four-way stop control at West Lake and Flamingo
Avenues or stop southbound traffic. (Traffic travelling
along Flamingo should have the right-of-way.) Some
vehicles on West Lake Drive stop even though they have
the right-of-way. In general, recommend improvements to
this intersection.
Southerly end of Flamingo Avenue and Main Street Circle
need~ lmprovement~ and defln~tion at thi~ int~rsectlon.
Jack Perna, Supt. of Montauk Schools - Flooding condition
at West Lake Drive and South Fulton Street.
Establish "No Passing Zones" along segments of Napeague
stretch and Main Street, due to entering and exiting
traffic from motels and restaurants. In addition, there
should be no passing on Montauk Highway through the
Montauk business district.
Unacceptable Improvements and Recommendations
Maintain the rural character and quality of life of
Montauk. No traffic signals or increase in traffic
lanes.
B. Speed along Old Montauk Highway and Flamingo Avenue
excessive (recommend enforcement).
C. Commercial vehicles parking
(recommend enforcement).
in residential areas
"No Passing" on Old Montauk Highway exists (recommend
enforcement}.
Report should include traffic analysis on the proposed
development of Lions Field.
Miscellaneous
A.
B. Report should include and will address noise and air
pollution relating to traffic.
Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee review of report
prior to adoption by Town Board.
Transportation to the nearest hospital (Southampton) is
a problem.
TO~t'OF FJ~TN.~d~TON
TR.~,NS~ORTAT~ON 8TUDY/PL3tNUPDATE
SPRINGS C~TX~BNS ~DV~SOR~ ~-'O,~XTTEE MEETING
ABH~W~G~,.,LL - 12/3/9~
Raymond DiBiase addressed the audience pursuant to the presentation
outline for Citizens Advisory Committees.
1. Public Transportation - Bus Servic~
Similar to the other Advisory Committees in the Town, the
residents in Springs would like to see a more reliable
and convenient year-round local bus service.
The bus service presently provides a route that leaves
East Hampton Village at 4:40 PM and 6:20 PM. The Springs
Citizens Advisory Committee (SCAC) feels a 5:15 PM
service is also needed.
Jitney bus service and County bus service should be
coordinated and scheduling revised accordingly. Schedule
information should be better publicized.
Speeding buses have been observed on Three Mile Harbor
Road.
2. Public Transportation - Lon= Island Rail Road
A. Improve existing service from Manhattan and from East
Hampton to Manhattan (greater frequency, more cars,
improve riding conditions). Note: Existing 6:00 AM
service from East Hampton to Manhattan arrives at Jamaica
at approximately 8:45AM. If you need to be in Manhattan
by 8:00 AM, this is a problem. _
3. Public Transoortation - Taxi Servic-
Currently, two to three taxi companies exist in the Town.
Our company,s prices from Springs to the Village of East
Hampton are expensive at ± $8.00 (off season, $12 in
season) for a one-way fare; however, the service is very
reliable. If possible, residents would like to see some
control over prices.
4. Alternative Means of Transportation - Bicvcl~,
SCAC feels bicycles are an acceptable alternative means
of. transportation; however, expressed concern with
existing roa~ conditions and in that they do not
accommodate b~cycles (narrow road widths~ no shoulder
area).
Residents have experienced bicyclists who are riding on
th. wrong side of the road and sidewalks. The "rules of
~he road" are not being followed. SCAC recommends some
form of an education on the "rules of the road" for
bicyclists, roller-bladers, etc.
Residents feel bike paths and lanes need to be provided
and/or up-graded.
Existina Road Conditions and Traffic Devices
A. Sidewalks ("Safety Paths")
SCAC favors sidewalks and would like to see further
improvements along Gardiners Avenue, Fort Pond
Boulevard and Springs Fireplace Road. In addition,
maintenance of existing deteriorated sidewalk on
Springs Fireplace Road are needed.
PTA of Springs School would like to see sidewalk
improvements along Springs Fireplace Road that
connect Fort Pond Boulevard to Ashawagh Hall.
Comments about sidewalk (safety path) along Three
Mile Harbor Road were discussed. This improvement-
was proposed approximately two years ago and was
shot down by residents who live along the proposed
route. Subsequently, the SCAC is in favor of this
safety path.
B. Roads
SCAC made note of the lane width of Three Mile
Harbor Road, Neck Path, Springs Fireplace Road, Fort
Pond Boulevard and Old Stone Highway. They feel
these roads are narrow with no cleared shou/der
area. The conditions constitute poor sight distance
and grading problems (drop-offs, banks). They would
like to see more trimming and pruning along these
road sides to optimize eight distance.
Asphalt overlays on Springs Fireplace Road and Old
Stone Highway have resulted in a drop-off along the
edge of pavement· They would like to see the
shoulder areas filled and regraded.
Road realignment including curve banking, along
Three Mile Harbor Road north of the Harbor was
performed by the Highway Department (Bowne Design).
Residents would like to see this section
reconstructed.
L. K. McLean ASsociates, P.C.
TOWN OF F~ST tb~IPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UP-DATE
WAINSCOTT CITIZENS ADVISORY CON/~ITTEE ~ETING
WAINSCOTT CHAPEL
DECEMBER 7, 1996
A broad presentation was made to the Committee, following the CAC
outline presentation:
Su~nlary of issues discussed:
Route 27 Bus~ness Area
"Highway strip" area subject to high number of accidents and
speeds due to commercial development. Lower speed limit (30
mph) is supported and enforcement was suggested, although it
was stated that this may increase bypass traffic. Concerned
about number of high accident locations in Wainscott, compared
with remainder of Town.
Bus operations and parking maneuvers conflict with thru
traffic flow.
Avoid installation of traffic signals on Route 27, would
encourage more bypass traffic.
Some passing maneuvers occur within the two-way left turn
lane. The seafood shop just east of Walnscott-Northwest Road
is busy, and left turn vehicles block the eastbound thru lane
because there is an exclusive westbound left turn lane at this
point.
The CAC had requested an exclusive right turn lane on
northbound Wainscott-Northwest Road approaching Route 27; a
shared thru/right turn lane was installed. This results in
right turning vehicles "cutting through" the post office
parking area as thru vehicles wait for gaps in traffic.
The existing westbound bus cut-out at Treasure Island does not
appear wide enough. Buses stopping at the pizza shop block
sight distance. There was favorable reaction to installation
of a bus cut out at the pizza shop. Relocation of the bus
stop to the overflow parking field on the west side of
Wainscott-Northwest Road, north of Route 27, was discussed.
Possible need for pedestrian crossing guard for pedestrians to
cross Route 27, near post office and jitney stop·
8. Need to improve circulation between parking lots in the area.
L. K. McLean Associates, P.C. co~smr~o~,mr~s
Bv~as~ Routes
Wainscott Stone Road is the eastern bypass connection to Route
27 to avoid back-ups in Bridgehampton, due to downtown area
congestion, and the traffic signal at the Caldor Shopping
Center. The CAC requested that Southampton Town be advised of
this, and that overall transportation efforts be coordinated
with Southampton.
2. Consider extending Industrial Road to Town Line Road to
provide an alternative to Route 27.
Excessive speeding in st~mmer. Enforcement has been good, and
is necessary.
Sayres Path has become an unofficial truck note. The existing
crown on this road is a concern.
Trucks bypass State and Town police check-points on Route 27.
6. Consider "speed humps" to control speeds.
Airport
The CAC was formed in 1983 in response to concerns over the
Town's airport. Any proposed development should be limited,
so as not to cause an increase in air traffic.
2. The number of take-offs and landings should be limited.
Rail
1.
2.
Provide local rall transit between hamlets.
Provide public transportation (e.g. bus) from rail stations to
downtow~ areas.
Reliability of LIRR service needs improvement, e.g. better
scheduling and frequency of trains. Additional eastbound
Friday express service is desired.
Ferrie~
1. Against proposed ferry to Montauk, due to potential
increases.
Z. Concerned about Sag Harbor ferry for same reason.
traffic
L. K. McLean Associates, P. C. co~su~xrs~ ENGINEI~$
Bus Service
(See Route 27 Business Area and Rail sections).
Consider establishment of long-term parking areas at Jitney
stops.
Could provide trolley service from remote parking areas to
beaches, but not to Wainscott Beach, which has no facilities.
B~kes/Rollerbladers
1. Concerned with rollerbladers skating abreast, particularly on
Wainscott Stone Road.
2. Bike paths are needed.
Miscellaneous
1. Consider livery service from bars to homes late at night.
RGD:efr
1116197
~ L.K. McLeanAssociates, P.C.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UP-DATE
HARBOR VILLAGE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTBE MEBTING
{CAC is part of Coalition of Neighborhood Preservation
of Sag Harbor "CONPOSH")
VILLAGE HALL - JANUARY 6, 1997
Raymond DiBiase addressed the audience pursuant to the presentation
outlined for Citizens Advisory Committees.
CO~4EHTS:
1_~. General
With respect to traffic counts undertaken by this study,
CONPOSH indicated that recent traffic counts have been
taken for the Route 114 bridge area and Jermain Avenue by
the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
and CONPOSH/Sag Harbor Police, respectively.
Public Transportation - Bus Service
Similar to the other Advisory Committees in the Town, the
residents in Sag Harbor would like to see a more reliable
and convenient year-round local service. Service should
be expanded in the summer, both with additional buses and
later in the day.
Train Service, Jitney Bus Service and County bus service
should be coordinated and scheduling revised accordingly.
Schedule information should be better publicized.
C. Consider establishing a hub/transfer point in the
Village.
If passenger-only ferry is considered, bus service to the
ferry is desirable.
3. Public Transportation - Long Island Rail Road
CONPOSH feels Long Island Rail Road is on a decline with
respect to future use.
4. Public Transportation - Ferries
CONPOSH as well as the Sag Harbor Village Trustees have
seen an attempt by developers to provide passenger
ferries from Manhattan and Connecticut to Sag Harbor.
Some residents feel passenger ferries are a positive idea
due to the r~duction of vehicles coming to Sag Harbor;
however, other disagree. The problem with ferries is
that one could expect services to expand to car ferries
and cruises (gambling operations) which would increase
vehicle volumes and be detrimental to the community.
L. K. McLean Associates, P.C.
B. Automobile ferries are unacceptable.
There is an existing "cruise" service from the Village to
Greenport, which travels up the Connecticut River.
Existina Road Conditions and Traffic Devices
Sidewalks - Sidewalks exist along NYS Route 114.
However, sidewalk terminates at Jermain Avenue and
Hempstead Street. CONPOSH feels sidewalks should be
extended further south along Route 114 to Lincoln Street
(Village Boundary Line). Safety is a concern for
pedestrians walking in the shoulder area of the road.
Roads - The NYS Route 114 corridor is the greatest
concern of CONPOSH. Problems include speed, weight and
volume of vehicles.
The specific location of transitions of speed limits from
55 to 40 to 35 mph on Route 114 should be reviewed.
Consider lowering 35 mph speed to 25 mph. Begin speed
reduction south of Village at Swamp Road. Establishment
of additional no passing zones should be investigated,
particularly between Lincoln Street and Jermain Avenue.
CONPOSH fees improvements or devices should be
implemented along NYS Route 114 to deter vehicles from
traveling in the shoulder area (bumps, grooves, etc.),
particularly between East Hempstead Street and Hillside
Drive, where pedestrians and bicyclists use the shoulder.
Concern with alignment on Route 114 (crest/horizontal
curve) near Hillside Drive.
Acceptable Improvements and Recomm~ndatio-~
CONPOSH does not want major improvements (bypass routes,
widenings) that will negatively impact the aesthetics and
rural character of Sag Harbor Village. Improvements
should be small scale and promote safety for pedestrians
and local vehicle traffic.
CONPOSH recommends that improvements should be performed
along NYS Route 114 at the gateway (old "toll gate" area)
to the Village (Jewish Cemetery). The residents feel a
monument should be constructed and the speed limit
reduced. The monument could serve as a "calming"
measure. CONPOSH feels the "funneling" of traffic into
the Village.would slow down vehicles' speed. Other
"traffic calming" measures to reduce speeds in the
Village are desirable.
L. K. McLean Associates, P.C.
7_= Zoning
CONPOSH feels by changing the zoning from Commercial
Industrial (C.I.) to A3 residential or possibly less
intensive (Al Residential) could increase traffic volumes
(more houses, more cars).
8_=. Accident Data
Ao
CONPOSH would like the report data for accidents to
include time of day (day/night) and extent of damages
incurred.
9. Enforcement
CONPOSH feels further enforcement of speed and weight
should be performed on NY$ Route 114. Village
enforcement is hindered by the lack of a local Justice of
the Peace; officers must travel elsewhere for court
appearances.
RGD:efr
1/13/97
L. K. McLean Associates, P. C. coss~no~o~s~s
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UP-DATE
AMAGANSETT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
AMAGANSETT SCHOOL
JANUARY 13, 1997
A brief presentation was made to the committee, following the CAC
presentation outline. Summary of issues discussed:
Route 27
Need for no-passing zone in Bluff Road/Cranberry Hole Road to
Surf Drive area.
Need left turn lane at post office and laundromat in business
district.
Concern about speeds on Route 27, have requested that NYSDOT
lower speed limit. Farmer's Market activity (slowing,
parking) may help keep speeds down.
Congestion on Route 27 has led to the following routes
becoming bypasses, with s~gniflcant summer volumes and h~gh
speeds:
Sktmhampton Road
Further Lane
Bluff Road
Discouraging use of these routes is desirable. There is
concern that future development may signif~cantl¥ Worsen this
situation. (It was explained that traffic growth based on
future land use will be addressed ~n the Transportation Plan.)
Left turns from Hedges Lane subject to sight d/stance
restriction due to parked vehicles. Consider left turn
prohibition.
Consider formal "pedestrian environment" In business d/strict,
i.e. centralized parking within walking distance of
businesses.
Intersection with Barns Lane (east of Newtown Lane) in the
Village of East Hampton is a concern, particularly with back-
ups due to eastbound left turns.
Excessive delays and poor sight distance to the east, for
vehicles exiting the municipal parking area on north side of
Route 27 in the s-mmer.
L. K. McLean Associates, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Emergency Services
Two traffic control officers in Bridgehampton facilitate
emergency vehicle passage by stopping traffic on Route 27 -
why not do the same in Amagansett? This could be done by
training existing TCO's.
Ferry
Against new ferry to Montauk or Napeauge due to potential
traffic increases. (Cross Sound Ferry Company has apparently
identified Napeague as the most likely terminal site.)
Taxi
1.
Address need for regulation of
establish fixed fares by zone.
Need formal "taxi stands".
fares and service. Could
Rollerbladlna. Joaaers. Bicyclists
1. Concern with extensive rollerblad!ng, jogging and bicycling in
pavement area on Further Lane.
Bicycles
Support for bike routes; Bluff Road (100' right-of-way width
in many areas) could be a candidate location for a bicycle
path. Further Lane also has significant bicycle use.
Rail
1.
If a shuttle service is established, would require parking at
Amagansett. Existing station parking lot is small.
1. Consider mandating reduced use of cars.
RGD:efr
_ 1/17/96