Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutN F Recreational Travel Needs Assessment - Near Term Recomm. Oct 2001 ,""'" ... ,"'-~ .' . . .' " '~T "\.... '-,r'.... ..,.. . '. . . . moving people"". " '. I '.' .... mO!'l.,:g~ Long Island n-ansportatlon Plan to Manage conge;t~.~.';:;........."...". North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment Near Term Recommendations October 2001 Prepared for: New York State Department of Transportation Task 7, Subtask 7.7 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, PC ABRAMS-CHERWONY & ASSOCIATES ENG-WONG TAUB PARSONS BRINKERHOFF JAC PLANNING LITP 2000 Moving People, Moving Goods Subtask 7.7 North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Analyses Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 2 HIGHWAY SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 4 SAFETY ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 7 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS. ......................... 11 FERRY RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 19 ACCESS MANAGEMENT........................................................................... 21 ~ .. - .. . .. DRAFT . .. . .. ~ WHB\LITP2000-94036 File: August2001 \Recommendation.doc 1 ~ .. - . 1. Introduction ~ Under PIN 0804.89, the Long Island Transportation Plan to Manage Congestion (known as LITP 2000), subtask 7, the North Fork Transportation Study was intended to provide an evaluation of the special transportation needs of the rural, primarily recreational North Fork of Long Island. The study area covered is that portion of Long Island beginning at the easterly terminus of the Long Island Expressway (LIE), north of the Peconic River in the Town of Riverhead, and extending eastward to the Orient Point Terminal Facility for the Cross Sound Ferry, in eastern Southold Town, and also including Shelter Island. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of representatives from the Towns of Riverhead, Southold and Shelter Island, the Village of Greenport, the Long Island Rail Road, Suffolk County Transit and the New York State Department of Transportation provided guidance to the study. .. '" - .,. .. .. .. .. The purpose of this document is to set forth the near term recommendations for improvements to the study area transportation system developed through the study efforts. These recommendations incorporate input from the TAG and from the public through the Local Agency/Stakeholder Participation Program conducted for the study. Also included in this document is a recommended practice regarding access management for the roads in the study area. .. .. .. .. ~ Three main east-west thoroughfares serve the study area, NYS Route 25, Suffolk County Road 58, and the combination of Sound Avenue and Suffolk County Road 48. County Road 58 extends from the easterly LIE terminus to a point just west of County Road 105 where it rejoins NYS Route 25, a distance of approximately 3 miles. East of CR 105, the two routes, that is, Rt. 25 and CR 48/Sound Avenue, are essentially parallel to the Village of Greenport, where CR 48 ends. From that point, only Rt. 25 provides service further east. CR 58 was originally constructed to serve as a bypass route around downtown Riverhead, where the main road, Rt. 25 had become congested. However, considerable development has occurred along CR 58 in recent years, and traffic volumes now exceed those found on either Rt. 25 or CR 48. .. .. - .. The Long Island Rail Road's Ronkonkoma Branch provides limited service in the study area, operating three weekday and two Saturday and Sunday roundtrips as far east as Greenport. The service is provided by diesel locomotive, as the Ronkonkoma Branch is non-electrified east of Ronkonkoma. Ridership on these trains was found to be very low, likely due in part to the extremely limited service provided. .. .. .. .. The S-92 and S-192 bus routes operated by Suffolk County Transit also serve the study area. The S-92 provides approximately hourly service between Orient Point and East Hampton, with some buses going only as far east as Greenport. The S-I92 is a premium all reserved express bus route that provides service between Greenport and New York City. The number of trips varies depending on the season and day of week. Since it is a reservation-based service, additional units are sometimes placed in service if needed. Ridership was found to be fairly high for this service. .. .. .. .. .. Two ferry routes serve the study area, one operating between Orient Point and New London, CT and the second between Greenport and Shelter Island. Both transport vehicles and passengers. .. ~ WH8\ LlTP 2000-94036 File: August2001 \ Recornmendation.doc 2 .. .. .. The New London service attracts travelers from points as far west as Manhattan, seeking to circumvent congestion on the 1-95 corridor, as well as travelers heading to and from Long Island's South Fork. The Greenport to Shelter Island service is one of only two means of travel to and from Shelter Island, the second being the ferry service connecting the south side of the island to North Haven, located on the north side of the South Fork. Most users traveling between New England and the South Fork utilize all three ferries, arriving or departing Long Island via Orient Point, and using Shelter Island and the two ferries as a "bridge" to and from the South Fork. This "bridge" traffic has become a major source of displeasure for residents of eastern Southold Town and Shelter Island, as they see no benefit accruing to their communities as a result, while they experience the traffic generated by the activity. In addition, the recent implementation of high speed passenger-only ferry service from Orient Point to New London, primarily to serve the casinos operating in New England, has added to the perception that little or no benefit accrues to the North Fork due to the ferry operation, in that ferry patrons are not thought to be likely to linger on the North Fork for recreational purposes. .. - .. - - .. - - The near term recommendations contained herein will serve as input to the Strategic East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) Study, a study intended to link land use and transportation planning decisions for the five East End Long Island towns, including the North Fork Transportation Study area. In this manner, the SEEDS study, being administered by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) will be provided with a comprehensive examination of the capacities and demands of the transportation system on the North Fork, establishing a sound basis for decision-making with regard to future strategies for the communities therein. Simulation modeling planned under the SEEDS study is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of these recommendations in improving the study area transportation system in a sustainable manner. A full description of the study area transportation system can be found in the document" Inventory and Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum" prepared for this study. - ... - .. .. Finally, it should be noted that no specific recommendations have been made for physical infrastructure changes to CR 58 or to CR 48. This is due to the fact that there is an ongoing Suffolk County study that will recommend improvements to CR 48, and the County intends to solicit proposals for a comprehensive study of the CR 58 corridor in the near future. Recommending improvement strategies for these two facilities prior to the completion of these studies was not included in this study to avoid redundancy of effort and resources. However, where appropriate, these facilities have been included in discussions of system or region-wide strategies. The following sections of this report present the near-term recommendations proposed for evaluation under the auspices of the SEEDS study. - .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. WHB\ UTP 2000-94036 File: August2001\ Recommendation.doc 3 .... .. ,. .. . 2. Highway System Recommendations .. . Based on the results of the comprehensive data collection program performed for this study, it was determined that peak demand on the transportation system in the North Fork Study area occurs between the hours of 11 :00 AM and 3:00 PM on Saturdays during the month of July. In recent years, the North Fork has become an increasingly popular tourist destination during the Fall season as well, when the vineyards are completing their harvests and making the wine, and farm stands are busy with customers preparing for the oncoming holiday season. In fact, review of the traffic data indicates that Sundays in October represent the second busiest time periods in the year. Overwhelmingly, automobiles are the transportation mode of choice for travelers in the study area, be they residents or visitors. During this peak period, recurrent congestion is evident on most of CR 58 due to the presence of considerable retail and commercial development there, most notably the Tanger Factory Outlet Center at the extreme western end of the study area. Considerable congestion also occurs in the eastbound direction as vehicles make their way to the vineyards, wineries, hotels, summer homes, etc. located in the eastern portion of the study area. East of CR 105, congestion is limited to the hamlet areas on Main Road, with sporadic slowdowns caused by side friction from farmstands with little or no off-street parking and no formal curb cuts or driveways. Through traffic destined to Shelter Island and the Cross Sound Ferry terminal in Orient Point both contributes to and is hindered by this congestion. Sound Avenue and CR 48 experience little or no congestion. Slow moving traffic is the most significant impediment to mobility along this route. During the times when traffic on Rt. 25 is experiencing considerable difficulty, traffic on CR48 moves at or above speed limits. ,. - - .. "'" ,. .. - - - - ~ Notwithstanding the forgoing, a review of the data collected combined with field observations and input obtained through the public participation program conducted for this study indicates that, with a few exceptions at specific locations, sufficient capacity is available on the study area highway system as a whole to accommodate demand. Furthermore, the seasonal nature of the demand argues against traditional mitigation strategies that add capacity through the widening of existing roads or the construction of new ones. In an area such as the North Fork, any capacity added to accommodate seasonal demand would lie unused during the off-season, significantly reducing the cost-effectiveness of capacity improvements. Therefore, it is recommended that a program incorporating systems management and demand management strategies combined with limited, localized capacity enhancements be considered. Aspects of the program, which should be considered for inclusion, are described in the following paragraphs. - - ~ - - '-- Recommended Transportation System Management Approach .. The origin-destination survey conducted for this study indicates that many vehicles that originate west of the study area such as western Suffolk County, Nassau County and New York City, and are destined to the easterly portion of the study area, including Shelter Island and the Cross Sound Ferry, are utilizing Rt. 25 for the entire trip east of CR 105. Some of these drivers may be taking this route by choice, for the purpose of sightseeing or stopping at the farmstands, and other attractions along Rt. 25. However, a good proportion of them, especially those destined to Shelter Island and the Cross Sound ferry, are likely doing so because they are not aware of any alternative. This traffic is more appropriately served by Sound Avenue/CR 48 as far east as Greenport. This also applies to westbound vehicles with the reverse origins and destinations. .. .. .. -- .. .. .. WHB\ LITP 2000.94036 File: Augllst2001\ Recommendation.doc 4 - . .. .. .. Therefore, it is recommended that a program be developed which provides motorists the best and safest route to their destinations. The program should include: .. . . "Best Route to..." signing on the roadways on the eastern and western ends of the study area. These signs should direct eastbound motorists to Greenport, Shelter Island, Orient Point and the Cross Sound ferry terminal via Sound Avenue/CR 48, and to the hamlet areas via Rt. 25. The eastbound signs should be placed on CR 58, CR 105 and Rt. 25, with consideration given to placing an advance sign on the LIE. Eastbound traffic should be directed to use northbound CR 105 to Northville Turnpike to Sound Avenue. Westbound signs should direct motorists to the LIE and Sunrise Highway via CR 48/Sound Avenue, then to Northville Turnpike and CR 105 or CR58 and to the hamlet areas via Rt. 25. .. ... '" '. .. .. .. . Signs should also be installed on both CR 48 and Rt. 25 at approaches to intersections with various north-south roadways at which it would be convenient and appropriate to change from one route to the other. The wording could be same, such as "Best Route to Orient Point" - .. .- . Consideration should be given to deploying variable message signs with appropriate message sets directing motorists to their preferred routes. .. .. CR 48 has substantial excess capacity and a well designed, comprehensive signing plan should help to direct much of the through traffic from Rt. 25 to CR 48 and Sound Avenue. This should help to alleviate some of the spot congestion along Rt. 25. In addition, reduction in through traffic, particularly traffic trying to reach its destination at a certain time (e.g., ferry traffic), will create more gaps in traffic on Rt. 25, thereby improving side street access. However, Sound Avenue is a two lane, rural scenic roadway with sharp horizontal and vertical curvature, as well as serving numerous farmstands and other attractions. Therefore, it is recommended that certain safety, capacity, and access management enhancements be made to Sound Avenue to provide the best and safest route for these vehicles, while retaining the rural character of the road. In addition, capacity and safety enhancements will be required on CR 58. The following measures are recommended: .. ... .. - .. .. . Widen and resurface Sound Avenue to provide one 12' travel lane in each direction, flanked by 5' shoulders (minimum) in each direction. '"' .. . Provide separate left and right turn lanes at appropriate intersections, with accommodations for bicyclists to negotiate intersection. '"' .. . Designate the shoulders described above as bicycle lanes. .. .. . Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Sound Avenue at Northville Turnpike, possibly set for flashing operation during the off-season. '"' ... . Require off-street parking for all farmstands and attractions with access to Sound Avenue, with defined access and egress points. These parking areas and driveways need .. WHBI LITP 2000.94036 File: August200l \ Recommendation.doc 5 ,- ~ ... - ... not be paved, however, they are an important safety enhancement. Parking on the shoulders in the vicinity of the driveways should be prohibited. - .. . Eliminate the traffic circle on CR 58 at Roanoke Avenue, and install a conventional signalized intersection. '" .. . Increase the capacity ofCR 58 by adding one lane in each direction. ~ (Note: It is recognized that SCDPW intends to issue a request for proposals for a study of the CR 58 corridor. It is likely that some recommendations for capacity enhancements will result from that study) .. -. .. The above strategy should be combined with improvements to the public transportation system, recommendations for which are presented in the Public Transportation Recommendations section of this report. In addition, certain roadway improvement measures have been developed to address safety issues that were identified during the safety assessment performed for this study. The following section of this report presents a discussion of the results of the safety assessment. .. .. .. .. .. .. '. .. - .. - - - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. ~ WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 File: August2001\ Recommendation.doc 6 .. ~ .. - .. 3. Safety Assessment Recommendations .'. .. As part of the study, a safety assessment was performed to identify locations in the study area that exhibited the highest number of accidents and to determine patterns in the accident experience at those locations, and to recommend measures to improve safety for the traveling public. Figure 3.1 presents the location at which these improvements are recommended. .. .. .. The results of the analysis indicate that many of the accidents occur due to capacity issues, such as congestion at a signalized intersection, or the lack of a left turn lane or protected left turn phasing on a traffic signal. In these cases, recommendations for remedial measures have been made where appropriate. In the case of the fatalities examined, all were found to have been due to driver error or poor driving conditions, such as wet or icy pavement. The following improvements are recommended to address the locations identified in the safety assessment. The Safety Assessment can be found in the study document entitled "Inventory and Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum." .. ... .. .. ... - 1. New York State Route 25 (East Main Street) at Suffolk County Route 105 (Cross River Drive) .. .. . Widen the eastbound approach to increase the storage lengths of the exclusive right- and left-turn lanes. The left-turn lane is approximately 50 feet long and the right-turn lane is about 100 feet long. Increasing the storage capacity of the turn lanes would reduce the number of turning vehicles queued in the through lane and increase the capacity of the approach. ... .. '. ~ . Revise the signal timing to increase capacity for this approach. .. 2. NYS Route 25 (East Main Street) at Roanoke Avenue (CR 73) .. .. . Revise the signal operation to provide a longer clearance interval between the end of the north/southbound phase and the start of the east/westbound phase to clear northbound right/left-turning traffic before the westbound signal turns green. ... ~ - . Install a left-turn arrow to inform motorists when they have a protected left-turn phase. .. .. 3. NYS Route 25 at Court Street / Nugent Drive (County Route 94A) .. . Install a protected westbound left turn phase to improve the safety and capacity of this movement. According to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Statewide Accident Reduction estimates, providing a protected left-turn phase could potentially reduce the number of left-turn accidents by 46 percent. .. ... ... .. - .. WHB\ LIT? 2000-94036 File: August200 1\ Recommendation.doc 7 - 1 ~ ..,., -., -, 2S 3D DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES ConlUltlrtg~ ~~It.Y.11178 (518)211&-2480 FIGURE 3.1 o '!!' lmle ..J SAFETY ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS - . ... .. . .- 4. ... .. ... ... - - - ... ... ... . .. ~ - - - . ... . .. .. .. . .. - - ... NYS Route 25 (East Main Street) at Ostrander Avenue . To help prevent rear-end accidents involving vehicles waiting to make left-turns from Main Street, a dual left-turn lane should be provided to remove these vehicles from the through traffic stream along Main Street. The eastern end of the dual left-turn lane would be used by eastbound left -turning traffic onto Ostrander and the western end of the left-turn lane would be used by westbound motorists turning left into the aquarium and gas station. The left-turn lane could be provided within the existing roadway width since the street is 40-feet wide and curb parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. According to NYSDOT Accident Reduction Estimates, adding a left-turn lane with a painted separation could potentially reduce rear-end accidents by 39 percent. . Install pedestrian crosswalks at the Ostrander A venue intersection and possibly mid- block near the entrance to the aquarium. Each of these crosswalks should have advance pedestrian crosswalk warning signs and warning signs located adjacent to the crosswalks. 5. Middle Road / North Road (County Route 48) at Wickham Avenue . Provide an exclusive left-turn phase on CR 48 to further protect the left-turn movements onto Wickham A venue. According to NYSDOT Accident Reduction Estimates, providing a protected left-turn phase could potentially reduce left-turn accidents by 46 percent. 6. Middle Road at Northville Turnpike (CR 43) . Rumble strips and/or "SLOW" warning pavement markings could be installed on the north and southbound approaches of Northville Turnpike to reduce travel speeds. 7. Sound Avenue at Northville Turnpike (CR 43) . Install a flashing red/yellow traffic signal. According to NYSDOT accident reduction estimates, adding a flashing signal could potentially reduce right-angle accidents by 36 percent. . Relocate the northbound stop bar. Currently, the stop bar is located approximately 50 feet back from the intersection and should be moved forward for two specific safety reasons. A stop bar located closer to the intersection would provide for better sight distances and it would prevent westbound left-turning vehicles from making the observed, shallow (more dangerous) turn onto Northville Turnpike. . Repaint the pavement markings at the intersection . Reduce the speed limit in the vicinity of Northville Turnpike from 45 mph to 35 or 40 mph. This lower speed limit would be advisable considering that Sound Avenue has WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 File: August2001\ Recommendation.doc 9 .. .. .. .. 11- to 12-foot lanes, narrow shoulders (where provided) and several blind driveways and roadways entering it near this intersection. ... .. .. The foregoing recommendations are based on the results of the Safety Assessment performed for the study. They do not represent any significant increases in capacity for any of the study area roadways, rather they are intended to present specific measures to address the occurrence of certain accident types at the locations studied. As such, it is recommended that these measures be implemented in the near term. .. - .. .. .. - ... - .. .- ... ... ... - .. .. ... - .. .. ... - - - ... WHB\ LIT? 2000-94036 File: August2001\ Recommendation.doc 10 ... .. . .. .. 4. Public Transportation Recommendations .. The North Fork is served by a variety of public transportation modes. The MTA Long Island Rail Road's Ronkonkoma Branch operates as far east as Greenport. Service on this non- electrified portion of the Ronkonkoma Branch is limited to three weekday round trips and two round trips on Saturday and Sunday. Suffolk County Transit serves the area with the S-92 bus route, which operates between Orient Point on the North Fork and East Hampton on the South Fork via Riverhead. On the North Fork, this bus route operates approximately hourly service primarily along State Route 25. Some S-92 trips only operate to and from Greenport. .. .. .. '"' ... .. Suffolk County Transit also serves Ri verhead and its surrounding area with the S-8A bus route, which functions mainly as a Riverhead circulator route. Several other Suffolk County Transit bus routes operate between Riverhead and the west and serve to connect the North Fork with the rest of Suffolk County. Finally, Sunrise Express operates the S-192 bus route between Greenport and New York City. The number of daily trips operated along this bus route varies depending upon both the season as well as the day of the week. This service is a premium all-reserved express bus route that operates along State Route 25 on the North Fork and utilizes the Long Island Expressway and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel to access Manhattan. A more detailed description of the rail and bus system can be found in the project document entitled "Inventory and Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum". .. .. .. ... - .. .. Although this document generally describes near-term recommendations, some of them are quite ambitious and have been formulated for a long range-planning horizon (i.e., 2020). They would require significant investment and substantial lead times. Other recommendations are more modest in scale and more consistent with a near term planning period. Preliminary alternatives range from adjustments to existing services to entirely new public transportation services. .. .. .. Long Island Rail Road .~ There are several opportunities with regards to improving Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) service on the North Fork. Because of the larger capital requirements of the LIRR, these alternatives would more properly be considered long-range proposals. - ... .. The portion of the LIRR's Ronkonkoma Branch east of Ronkonkoma to Riverhead and Greenport is not electrified. Diesel locomotives in "push-pull" mode are utilized with new bi- level coaches along this segment of the LIRR. Passengers traveling between points west of Ronkonkoma and the North Fork must transfer at that station to a diesel train for service to Riverhead and the North Fork. For safety and environmental considerations, the LIRR does not operate diesel locomotives through the East River tunnels to and from Penn Station in Manhattan. '. .. .. .. .. The new dual mode fleet that operates into Penn Station has not been assigned to the North Fork service. For this reason, persons traveling between the North Fork and Manhattan need to transfer between trains at Ronkonkoma. Assignment of dual mode equipment to the North Fork could eliminate this transfer. One concluding point is that the new dual mode fleet will not be .. .. .. ., WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 File: August200i\ Recommendation.doc 11 .... . .. .. .. able to utilize the 63rd Street Tunnel to Grand Central Tenninal (i.e., East Side Access) because of tunnel clearance limitations. .. .. Much of the LIRR's Ronkonkoma Branch east of Ronkonkoma is single track and is "dark territory" (i.e., not equipped with signals). For these reasons, the capacity of the LIRR on the North Fork is limited. This influences train frequencies and the ability to have a one-seat ride. .. .. .. The LIRR alternatives that follow vary in the amount of capital investment related to right-of- way, motive power and other equipment that would be required for their implementation. ... .. A number of proposals could include physical improvements to the LIRR facilities in the North Fork area and could be comprised of three possible elements: (I) construct double track or extensive passing sidings; (2) extend electrification east of Ronkonkoma; and (3) fully equip the Ronkonkoma Branch with signals. A capital program could be formulated that includes some or all three elements described above. Further, the plans could differ by the extent of facilities with improvements as far east as Riverhead or Greenport. Four points are worth noting regarding these types of improvements. First, capital improvements could be paired with operating alternatives to take advantage of capacity, frequency and speed changes. Second, a wide range of options is possible. Third, the physical and operating proposals could be implemented in an incremental or staged fashion. Finally, such improvements are ambitious and would need significant funding and lead time to be accomplished. ... .. .. . .. .. .. .. Hourlv Service to Riverhead .. . One proposal is to operate more trains between Riverhead and Manhattan. The present limited level of service would continue to be provided between Riverhead and Greenport. Service between Riverhead and Manhattan could be operated on an hourly basis on weekdays and every two hours on weekends. This alternative would allow people on the North Fork to travel to Riverhead by whatever mode they prefer and then board a relatively frequent westbound train without having to transfer at Ronkonkoma. Through service via Ronkonkoma could be provided either by electrifying the LIRR to Riverhead - thus allowing Riverhead to be served by the LIRR's multiple-unit electric coaches - or by utilizing dual mode locomotives which can operate in non-electrified territory as well as draw motive power from a third rail. - - ,eM .. This alternative might also require improving the right-of-way east of Ronkonkoma (i.e., passing sidings and/or double track, signals, etc.) as far as Riverhead. In effect, the high-density operations of the Ronkonkoma Branch would be extended east to Riverhead and this increased level of operations would have to be integrated into the existing operations along the western portions of the LIRR. .. ... .. .. With this alternative, Riverhead would become more of a "focal point" for North Fork residents who want to utilize the LlRR. Additional parking would be required near the Riverhead train station, which is already being considered by the Town of Riverhead, and it might become necessary to construct a rail vehicle storage yard there because of the new service pattern. .. .. .. .. - WHB\ LIT? 2000-94036 File: August200 1\ Recommendation.doc 12 .. .. .. - .. One-Seat Service to Greenport - .. The next proposal is similar to the first in that it involves operating a significantly higher number of trains. In this proposal, frequent service (i.e., every hour on weekdays and every two hours on weekends) would be operated between Manhattan and the North Fork. However, in this scenario, the more frequent one-seat ride service would be available as far east as Greenport. - .. - This alternative would face all of the same challenges as the previous proposal in terms of infrastructure and cost; however, a significantly higher amount of parking at Riverhead might not be as necessary because frequent service would exist as far east as Greenport. This is offset by the fact that a rail vehicle storage yard might now be necessary at Greenport instead of in Riverhead in order to accommodate the new service pattern. In any event, the capital costs would be significantly higher than those in the first proposal because the area served by frequent LIRR service would be extended all the way to the eastern railhead at Greenport. - ... - .. North Fork "Scooter" Service .. The next alternative involves an increased focus on utilization of the LIRR for trips within the North Fork itself. In order to accomplish this goal, the Jamesport Station, Cutchogue Station and Peconic Station would all be reconstructed at their former locations. These newly constructed stations would all have high platforms in order to expedite the loading and unloading process; they would also be fully compliant with the requirements ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act. A new Tanger Station near the Tanger Outlet Center west of Riverhead would also be constructed. Taken together, these stations - in addition to the existing LIRR stations at Riverhead, Mattituck, Southold and Greenport - would allow for greater access to various points along the North Fork. .. - .. - .. .. .. Additionally, a new railroad shuttle service, which has been referred to as "scooter service" could be operated between Greenport Station and the new Tanger Station. The present limited level of service would continue to be provided between the Ronkonkoma Station and the new Tanger Station. With one train, a two-hour headway could be maintained (i.e., 120 minute cycle time). With two trains, a one-hour headway could be maintained. In order to maximize ridership, it is proposed that service operate on an hourly headway. This new service could operate seven days a week. - - .. - .. The new North Fork Scooter could require significant investment in terms of track and signals upgrades. Additionally, this alternative would have a high capital cost due to the reconstruction of three former LIRR stations and the construction of one new station. .. .. .. There are several variations upon this alternative, which also warrant consideration. These are as follows: .. .. . The North Fork Shuttle service may be a "summer only" operation. During the remainder of the year, the present limited level of service would continue to be provided between Ronkonkoma and Greenport. .. .. "" WHB\ LIT? 2000-94036 File: August2001\ Recommendation.doc 13 .W .. .. ... - . The North Fork Shuttle could operate between the Ronkonkoma Station and Greenport. This would greatly increase the cost of this proposal because frequent service would have to be maintained over a significantly longer portion of the Ronkonkoma Branch. However, additional benefits to this variation are that more frequent service would be available to connect with the electrified service to the west and that Yaphank - although not part of the study area - would benefit from more frequent LIRR service. .. ... .. .. ... - . The North Fork Shuttle could also operate between Riverhead Station and Greenport. This would somewhat lower the cost of the proposal because the new Tanger Station would not ueed to be constructed. The present limited level of service would continue to be provided between Ronkonkoma Station and Riverhead. ... - . A variation of the prior proposal would call for operating the new North Fork Shuttle service between Riverhead Station and Greenport without reconstructing any of the former LIRR stations. Clearly, this would further lower the cost of this proposal. The present limited level of service would continue to be provided between Ronkonkoma Station and Riverhead. - - Wine Countrv Trains ... - Another alternative for LIRR service is to operate special seasonal "wine country trains" between New York City and the North Fork. The North Fork's wineries are a tourist attraction. Special weekend excursion trains could be operated to serve them in a manner similar to the LIRR's current "Summer Getaways" specials. .. - - Additional Trains - Finally, a somewhat straightforward proposal is to simply operate more LIRR trains along the Ronkonkoma Branch. This proposal does not suggest upgrading the line with any significant capital construction or investment in new equipment, but rather that the physical plant of the existing Ronkonkoma Branch be utilized to its best potential. It is possible that LIRR service between the Ronkonkoma Station and Greenport could be operated on a three-hour (Le., 180 minute) headway seven days a week. - - "" Suffolk County Transit - .. There are several opportunities with regards to improving Suffolk County Transit bus service on the North Fork. It should be noted that the S-58 bus route has recently been extended to Riverhead from Middle Island. Accompanying each alternative is an estimate of the planning horizon for each proposal and its possible implementation period. With bus service, the capital investment would be much more limited than those discussed for the LIRR. Buses would be acquired, which typically takes a year to 18 months. For proposals that only require a few buses, Suffolk County Transit might be able to utilize its existing fleet. .. .. .. .. .. ... - WHB\ LITP 2000.94036 File: August2001\ Recommendation.doc 14 ... ... .. ... .. .. For the most part, the decision to implement a proposal would be dependent on identifying the necessary funding. It is apparent that riders' fares will only cover a small portion of the cost and there will be a need for subsidies. The assumed magnitude of these subsidies and the likelihood of identifying funding sources have been used to suggest an implementation period of either near term or mid term. None of the proposals have been categorized as long term because of their magnitude and scale. Notwithstanding these qualitative assessments on the implementation period, the difficulty of obtaining necessary funding should not be understated. '.. '. - "Rail Feeder" Service - - The first proposal for Suffolk County Transit is to operate a new "Rail Feeder" express bus between the Ronkonkoma Station and the North Fork. The bus would operate as an express service along the Long Island Expressway between Ronkonkoma and Riverhead; between Riverhead and Greenport the bus would utilize State Route 25. This route replicates that utilized by the Sl92 express service as far as Ronkonkoma; however, the S-I92 currently bypasses the Ronkonkoma Station on its trip between the North Fork and New York City. This new bus route would allow for more frequent travel between the Ronkonkoma Station and the North Fork than is presently afforded by the LIRR's Ronkonkoma Branch. It serves to better connect the North Fork with Ronkonkoma without utilizing capital-intensive proposals that primarily involve some type of major investment in the LIRR. - - - - - This route would require a cycle time of approximately three hours (i.e., 180 minutes). With two vehicles, service could be operated approximately every 90 minutes; with three vehicles, service could be operated approximately every hour. It is proposed that hourly service be operated on weekdays, with 90 minute headways maintained on weekends. While this proposal partially duplicates service on the existing Ronkonkoma Branch, it involves changes to the bus system which require less lead time and cost. For this reason, the service change would be considered a near term proposal. - - - - Improved S-92 Service ... There are several suggestions for improved service on the existing S-92 bus route that can be considered relatively modest near term proposals. These are as follows: .. ... . Increased frequency of service along the existing S-92 bus route. As stated previously, this bus route operates between the North Fork and the South Fork via Riverhead. In order to slightly improve this bus route's headway, one vehicle could be added to the route on weekdays and on Saturdays. .. .. . .. . Extend all S-92 trips as far as Orient Point (i.e., eliminate the Greenport short turn trips) and operate the S-92 bus route on a consistent hourly headway in both directions on weekdays as well as on Saturdays. This will likely require the assignment of at least one more vehicle to this route. As is the current practice, approximately half of the trips would continue to use County Route 58 in Riverhead. As with many of the proposals, service could be expanded to include Sunday operations. Initially, this could be oriented to peak travel seasons and then include Sunday service throughout the year. .. ... .. .. - WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 File: August2001\ Recommendation,doc 15 - .. .. .. .. . .. .. Allow for "point" or "route" deviation service (i.e., demand responsive service) within three-quarters of a mile of the S-92 bus route at all times that the route is in operation. This proposal would allow the buses to divert off of their route to pick-up or drop-off passengers who have made prior arrangements. This operating scheme enables passengers to utilize the S-92 bus for "curb-to-curb" service, akin to a taxicab. - .- This proposal would require that Suffolk County Transit or the operator assign a dispatcher to schedule and arrange the pick-ups and drop-offs for the S-92 bus route. Another additional cost would entail the extra time assigned to the S-92 to account for the possibility of multiple pick-up and drop-off requests. This will likely require the assignment of at least one more vehicle to this route. However, in the aggregate this proposal does not utilize an extraordinary level of resources and is therefore considered to be a mid term alternative. - - - ... New CR 48 Express Route - Another proposal is to operate a new express bus route along County Route 48. This new "Express Route" would operate between the Tanger Outlet Center and Greenport via Riverhead. Service can operate hourly throughout the week. This new express bus service would require a two hour cycle time; therefore, two vehicles would be required to maintain an hourly headway. It should be noted that this proposal could be implemented in place of the previously described LIRR "North Fork Shuttle" between Tanger and Greenport along the Ronkonkoma Branch. "" - - So that both the utility as well as the convenience of the new express bus route is maximized, new park-and-ride lots could be located along the main roads leading out of each hamlet where they intersect County Route 48. This proposal can be considered to be a candidate for near term implementation. .. - Circulator Bus Service - .. Another proposal is for Suffolk County Transit to operate new "circulator" bus routes in the "downtown" areas of several communities along the North Fork. Circulator buses enhance the vitality of core areas by improving mobility within the central business district. By providing another mobility option, they help focus development in those areas that already have the necessary supporting infrastructure and therefore help foster "smart growth" policies. Circulator bus routes can also become closely identified with a particular locality and thereby can help promote a sense of community among the residents of the area. These bus routes can also be utilized to connect to the proposed "Express Route" along County Route 48 and to various LIRR stations along the Ronkonkoma Branch. - .. .. .. .. It is proposed that new circulator bus routes be operated in Greenport, Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold throughout the week. The exact route alignment of each of the circulator bus routes has not yet been determined. However, one bus would be assigned to operate in each community; therefore, the headway on each circulator bus route would vary depending upon the cycle time required to operate the bus route. It should be noted that Suffolk County Transit's S- 8A bus route already effectively functions as a circulator bus route in and around Riverhead. As .. .. .. .. WHBI LIT? 2000-94036 File: August200J\ Recommendation.doc 16 - .. ... '... .. part of this proposal, the S-8A would also operate on Sundays. Due to the introduction of a new transit service type to many North Fork communities - and because of the level of resources associated with implementing and effectively marketing the new circulator bus routes - this proposal can be considered to be a mid term to long term alternative. .. .. - Demand Responsive Service ,- ... Another alternative is to consider operating a demand responsive service throughout the North Fork. The existing underlying fixed route bus system would continue to operate "as is" while a complementary demand responsive service would provide "curb-to-curb" service throughout the entire North Fork Transportation Study area. Service would operate on weekdays and on Saturdays (i.e., whenever the current Suffolk County Transit system is in operation). This service could either be made available to the general public or only be made available to selected eligible groups (e.g., seniors, handicapped patrons). ... .. .. ... .. Similar to the prior proposal for point and/or route deviation service from the S92 bus route, this proposal would require that Suffolk County Transit or the operator assign a dispatcher to schedule and arrange the pick-ups and drop-offs for the new demand responsive service. In the aggregate this proposal is not expected to utilize an extraordinary level of resources and is therefore considered to be a "near term" alternative. .. '- .. Airport Service .. .. Another proposal involves the operation of bus service between the communities along the North Fork and both John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) and LaGuardia Airport (LGA). At the present time, the S-192 express bus stops in Queens at Exit 24 of the Long Island Expressway (i.e., at Kissena Boulevard) on its way between the North Fork and Manhattan. No direct service is provided to either airport. .. ... - ... Service to JFK would require a cycle time of approximately six hours. This is primarily due to the fact that the vehicle would have to circulate around the airport in order to serve all nine airline terminals. However, it should be kept in mind that the new AirTrain rail system will soon connect the Jamaica Station of the LIRR with all the terminals at JFK. It is therefore possible for the bus to travel only between Jamaica and the North Fork, thus reducing the cycle time to approximately five hours. Service to LGA would require a cycle time of approximately five and a half hours. ... .. "" .. ... It is proposed that two buses initially be assigned to each bus route in order to test the extent of the possible market for bus service to the airports. The vehicles should be large "over-the-road" motorcoaches with luggage bins. The JFK service would have a headway of approximately either three hours or two and a half hours, depending upon whether or not the service operates only as far as the Jamaica AirTrain Station. The LGA service would have a headway of approximately two hours and 45 minutes. In order to be useful, the airport services would have to operate throughout the week. Their service span would also have to be relatively long; it is proposed they operate from approximately 6:00AM to 12:00AM. .. .. .. ... .. ... - WHB\ L1TP 2000-94036 File: August200l \ Recommendation.doc 17 ,- .. .. - '. .. Due to the level of resources that would be required to operate these routes, along with the specialized market being served, both proposals would be considered long-term proposals. .. Utilize Rail Road Right of Wav for Bus Service - .. Another proposal calls for paving over the LIRR's Ronkonkoma Branch right-of-way east of Riverhead and utilizing the new roadway to operate a new shuttle bus route between Riverhead and Greenport. Service could operate hourly throughout the week. This new bus service would require a two hour cycle time; therefore, two vehicles would be required to maintain an hourly headway. It should be noted that - similar to the proposal for a new County Route 48 "Express Route" - this proposal could be implemented in place of the previously described LIRR "North Fork Shuttle" between Tanger and Greenport along the Ronkonkoma Branch. Due to the resources that would be required to implement this alternative and its institutional issues, this proposal would be classified as a long-term initiative. .. AI .. .. .. .. Recreational Shuttles .. ... Another proposal involves operating a seasonal (i.e., summer/autumn) "recreational shuttle" sponsored in part by the various North Fork wineries. The new shuttle would operate on weekends and could connect the wineries with hotels and the various LIRR stations along the North Fork. The exact alignment of the proposed route has not yet been determined. To be effective, approximately two or three specialized vehicles would have to be assigned to this service. .. .. . .. - As was previously mentioned, the North Fork's wineries are a tourist attraction in their own right, and special weekend excursion trains could be operated to serve them in a manner similar to the LIRR's current "Summer Getaways" specials. This bus shuttle route could either connect with new train service or simply serve the existing LIRR trains. In any event, this proposal may be considered a near term possibility, -- ... ... Summary .. It should be kept in mind that the proposals represent a "menu" of alternatives that may be implemented in whole or in part. Different elements of certain proposals can also be "mixed and matched" with elements of other proposals. The proposals should provide a useful and timely input to the transportation analysis that will be undertaken as part of the SEEDS project. ... 411 ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. WHBI L1TP 2000-94036 File: August2001\ Recommendation.doc 18 - .. .. .. .. 5. Ferry Recommendations .. The ferry operations in the study area are privately owned and operated, for-profit enterprises. As such, changes to their operation are not in the purview of the agencies involved in the preparation of this report. The ferry operators, however, have been cooperative in providing input to the study. .. - .. .. It is recommended that several new potential ferry services be investigated. However, should it be determined that these new services would be beneficial, it is beyond the scope of this effort to identify possible operators or sources of funding for the establishment of these services. That being stated, the following ferry strategies should be evaluated. .. .. .. New Ferry From Shoreham .. .. During the public participation effort for this study, numerous suggestions regarding alternate ferry service between northern Long Island and Connecticut were made. Most often, Shoreham was the suggested location for the Long Island port, likely due to the presence of the defunct LIPA nuclear power plant and related facilities there. Ferry service from Shoreham to New England would be beneficial to the North Fork study area in that those ferry passengers with origins or destinations west of the study area would be able to reach the ferry terminal without traveling on the North Fork. However, ferry passengers with origins and destinations on the South Fork of Long Island would likely continue to use the Orient ferry, so as to avoid driving on the crowded South Fork roads. Therefore, this ferry service would be of greatest benefit to the North Fork if the ferry service at Orient Point were terminated in conjunction with the institution of the Shoreham service. It is not likely that this could be accomplished, unless the operator of the Cross Sound ferry were given significant financial incentive to relocate to Shoreham. Furthermore, were the Orient service terminated, those ferry riders destined to the South Fork would likely continue to use the Shelter Island "bridge" route to avoid driving on the South Fork; these drivers simply would drive east from Shoreham to Greenport, rather than west from Orient to Greenport, and cross over Shelter Island to the South Fork. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. ... .. New Ferry From Montauk to New England ... .. In recent years, there has been considerable discussion of establishing ferry service from the South Fork of Long Island to New England. Although there has been local opposition to this proposal, it is recommended that it be further investigated, as it would have a positive impact on traffic conditions on both the North and South Forks. The service would carry both vehicles and passengers. Establishment of service to the South Fork would benefit the North Fork by removing from the North Fork roadways those vehicles traveling between New England and the South Fork on the ferry. On the South Fork, travelers between New England and the South Fork would arrive and depart from Montauk. On Friday evenings and Saturday mornings, when eastbound traffic volumes destined to the South Fork are heaviest, those arriving via ferry would travel in the off-peak direction from Montauk to their destination. Similarly, on Sunday evenings when departing traffic is heaviest westbound, those leaving via the ferry would travel east to Montauk to depart. It should be noted that this service would result in new traffic patterns in the vicinity of the new ferry terminal; however, there are likely to be locations at which the terminal .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 File: August2001\ Recommendation.doc 19 ... .. .. - .. could be located so that the impact of these new traffic patterns could be minimized. It is recommended that the potential demand for such a service be investigated through the data acquisition program for the SEEDS study, as this is an issue with regional implications, rather than being confined to the North Fork. - .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. - .. - ... - .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - - WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 File: August2001 \ Recommendation.doc 20 - .. .. "" - 6. Access Management Recommendations .. Discussion .. .. Access management has been defined as the coordination of access to land and traffic flow, or the practice of optimizing access to land uses while preserving the capacity and safety of traffic on the surrounding roadway network. Roadways perform the dual role of providing access to abutting properties and accommodating through travel. It is important that these roles be balanced and maintained, in that traffic congestion can result when poorly planned development and improperly located driveways cause operations to degrade. All transportation plans (regional, state, local) should have an access management element. .. .. .. .. .. Typically, a well-designed access management plan includes the classification of roadways into various levels of access control. Stricter standards are applied to major streets while local streets have more flexible requirements. In a statewide access management plan, there might be seven levels in the roadway hierarchy: freeway, expressway, strategic arterial, principal arterial, secondary arterial, collector, and local street. Urban areas may have five layers, while rural areas with low traffic volume might allow for three or four. Major streets should serve through traffic, while collector and local roads provide access to property. '" .. ~ .. - .. In the study area, NYS Rt. 25, CR 48, CR 58 and CR 105 can be considered principal arterials, and thus should serve primarily through traffic. Sound A venue can also be considered an arterial, in that, with CR 48, it forms an important alternative to Rt. 25 for east west through travel. There are a small number of roadways that serve as collectors, and the balance of the roadway system serves as local streets providing access to properties located adjacent to them. .. - - - Commercial development has proliferated along CR 58 with little or no requirement for shared parking or internal circulation among adjacent businesses, and seemingly no attempt made to limit the number of curbcuts. Rt. 25 functions as a downtown "Main Street" for the many hamlet centers along it, while outside the hamlet centers it provides the principal means of travel between them, and functions as a through arterial, especially east of Greenport, where it is the only east-west road of any significance. - - .. - .. Due to the history of development and the nature of the study area, allowances are made in the zoning and building codes for roadside businesses related to agricultural activities such as farm stands to exist along the arterial roadways, mainly on Rt. 25 and CR 48/Sound A venue. Most of these businesses have no formal off-street parking, and in many cases, no formal access driveways, either. Vehicles simply drive off the pavement and park adjacent to the businesses wherever possible. Other vehicles stop on the pavement to visit these sites. This results in considerable friction with through traffic, and is the observed source of a substantial portion of any congestion found on the study area roadways. Imposition of a rigid hierarchy of roadways with strictly defined criteria for allowable access configurations would be contrary to the stated goal of this study to preserve and enhance the rural, agricultural nature of the study area. Therefore, an access management plan in the traditional definition is not offered here; rather, a number of recommendations are made which will offer guidance to the responsible municipalities in achieving best balance possible between the objectives of providing for a well - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 File: August2001 \ Recommendation.doc 21 - ... - - - managed highway system and preserving one of the most desirable characteristics of the study area, its rural nature. - .. Recommendations ... .. With the exception of Sound Avenue, which is a Riverhead Town road, access management on the major State and County roadways falls under the purview of those municipalities. However, the Town governments play an important part in their role in the review of site plans under the SEQRA process, and the establishment of zoning ordinances. Typically, the State or County cannot deny access to an uncontrolled arterial if it is the sole possible access point to the property. .. . .. .. .. A number of larger parcels of farmland still exist, many with frontage along or access to more than one road. Such parcels having access to side roads as well as arterials and collectors should have the access preserved during the subdivision process. When property owners or developers make application for subdivision of such parcels, the site plan review process should be utilized to make certain that new smaller properties are not created which only have access to arterials, thereby resulting in the necessity to grant individual access to each parcel. Site plans for subdivision of large properties zoned for residential development along arterials should provide individual parcels with access to side roads via internal connections, either driveways or internal roadways. Where practical, the residences in such subdivisions should be oriented so that they back on the arterial, with a suitable buffer between the residences and the highway right of way. Where it is impossible to provide all parcels with access to the side roads, access to the arterial should be limited to a single access point providing combined access to affected parcels. This can be accomplished through easements that remain with the property, or by design of internal roadway systems that provide access to individual parcels within a subdivision and intersect with the major road at a single point. In this manner, the smallest number of potential conflict points is created on the arterial. .. ... .. - .. ... .. ... .. ... ~, With particular regard to commercial development, it is further recommended that the Towns in the study area develop and adopt design standards that control the design and spacing of access points such as driveways and intersections as well as the length of parking lot driveway aisles and the provision of auxiliary turning lanes to provide for the deceleration of vehicles turning into driveways or other streets. Driveways should never be located within the area of influence of intersections. Auxiliary lanes decrease delay and accidents as well as increase capacity by reducing the difference in speed between through and turning vehicles. Proper spacing of driveways and intersections has been shown to make it easier for drivers to react and to respond to conflicts. To the extent possible, turning movements at unsignalized driveways and intersections should be limited. This can be accomplished through driveway design using channelizing islands or by the construction of raised medians that can also be used to provide left turn lanes. .. .. - .. ... .. ... .. ... It should be noted that the conditions discussed above regarding the lack of formal access and parking facilities to serve the agriculture-related activities along the arterials in the study area will only be exacerbated by the growth in traffic volumes due to the increasing popularity of the North Fork, both as a recreational destination and as a place of primary residence. The .. - - ... WHB\ LIT? 2000-94036 File: August2001 \ Recommendation.doc 22 - ... .. ... ., responsible municipalities should give some consideration to establishing at least some minimal standards for providing off street parking and formalizing access to such businesses. Such criteria should include every attempt to provide access on other than the arterial roadway, if possible, as well as driveway location and minimal parking requirements. Parking lots and access driveway need not necessarily be paved, but should be clearly identified as such. ... - ... .. ... .. .. ., ... ., ... .. '% .. ... ... - ... ... ., ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... ... ... - WH8\ LITP 2000.94036 File: August2001 \ Recommendation.doc 23 ...