HomeMy WebLinkAboutAction Strategy for 1997 prepared by East End Transportation Council Apr-97
.'
ACTION STRATEGY FOR 1997
RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposed By
THE EAST END TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
of
The East End Supervisors and Mayors Association
Authors
Neboysha Brashich, Southold
Robert Duffy, Southampton
Van Howell, Village of Westhampton Beach
Bernard Jacobson, Shelter Island
Lisa Liquori, East Hampton
Valerie Scopaz, Southold, Chair
April 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................... 1
Issues and Recommended Strategies
Rail Service.......................................................... 4
Bus Transit........................................................... 6
Ferry Services...................................................... 8
Air Transit............................................................ 10
Trails Network......................................................12
Coordinated Road Network..................................14
Concluding Statement.................................................... .16
Summary of Implementation Strategies...........................17
Appendix......................................................................... .19
PREFACE
The purpose of this report is two-fold:
1. present a synopsis of transportation issues of regional
concern to East End residents and governments, and
2. suggest actions or strategies to resolve these problems.
The strategies suggested in this report reflect the consensus of The East
End Transportation Council. These recommendations are based on the
Council's research, and its assessment of the East End's regional needs
and priorities.
If endorsed by The East End Supervisors and Mayors Association
(hereafter referred to as "the Association"), the Council will use this
document as a blueprint for its activities for the remainder of 1997.
INTRODUCTION
Transportation Planning:
Why the East End Needs a Coordinated Strategy
In the coming decade, the growth and management of the region's
transportation network will have a significant effect on East End
towns and villages. The strategies recommended in this report deal
with the key transportation issues that face the region.
In reading this report, it is important to remember that each
transportation decision made by state, county and town can have
far reaching effects: not just on the local or regional economy, but
also on the landscape, the land use patterns and the quality of life.
The urban and suburban land use pattern that characterizes much
of Long Island reflects the dominant transportation mode of the late
20th century. Due to its location, the East End constitutes the last
frontier, as it were, of the Long Island landscape. With a substantial
portion of its land still in an undeveloped state, the region has a
window of opportunity within which to forestall the transportation ills
that plague the rest of the Island. However, the Council finds
that this window of opportunity most likely will not be open for long
for we no longer have a buffer of time and space to the west.
A number of trends are operating here. First, demographic and
economic changes are underfoot. There have been shifts in the
location of major employment centers for East End residents. There
was a time when the majority of the region's residents were gainfully
employed on local farms, in service businesses, or as baymen with
a little income on the side from tourism.
Today increasing numbers of retirees and young families are
moving into the region, the latter attracted no doubt by the quality of
,aMi,," !':tr.ilt~ fnr 1 007 ~aC!t 1:",1'1 Tr.::af'\c;pnrtatinn rnlln,.i1
PlIgA 1
the schools and the area's ambiance. The attraction of the area for
young families is buttressed by a number of major professional
employment centers existing within an hour's (or two) commute; e.g.
colleges and universities, teaching hospitals, research and
development laboratories, and industrial parks. In the near future,
the proposed redevelopment of the former Grumman plant in
Calverton near Riverhead's western border, will add a significant
source of employment within the region. A complicating factor is the
world-wide trend towards networking via computer. More and more
businesses are being operated from private residences. Some
formerly summer or weekend-only residents are now primarily year-
round residents who commute to points elsewhere only when
business requires it. The net result? The East End is becoming
more of a bedroom community than it ever has been.
The standard federal, state and county governmental response to
increasing development pressure and economic activity on Long
Island has been to build more highway infrastructure. The extensive
road widenings and other improvements undertaken this year
between Brookhaven and Riverhead alone (from Mount Sinai
through Rocky Point and Wading River) provide an apt case in
point.
This philosophy is not unique to Long Island. It permeates public
transportation policy from the federal down to the county levels.
The disbursement of huge amounts of federal funds hinges on
regional and local compliance with a body of policy that encourages
highway construction and expansion over any other mode of
transportation. The price for bucking this policy is the loss of these
funds, on which sizeable and politically powerful agencies within
state and county government depend for their existence and
influence.
Therein lies the challenge that faces the East End. Our desire to
create a more balanced network of alternative and traditional
transportation modes essentially runs counter to the prevailing
national, state and county planning and funding policies.
The 1991 adoption by the U.S. Congress of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (lSTEA) signaled a new direction for
transportation policy at the federal level. However, change takes
time; bureaucratic change perhaps more so. The impacts of this
legislation are just beginning to be felt on the East End in the form of
grants for intermodal planning. However, this change in philosophy
is less evident in the capital improvement projects that have been
slated for the East End by the State Department of Transportation
and the County Department of Public Works. The East End
justifiably can say there is not enough cooperative planning; not
enough public involvement; not enough focus on alternative transit
modes and their linkages; not enough willingness in
AMin" C:.r'Q.~ fnr 1007 _ J:~d J:nrl TranC>pt"rt!illfit\ft r:"'llnl"il
PagA?
the short run to consider and implement alternative solutions; not
enough flexibility in responding to local needs and concerns; and,
not enough concern about aesthetics.
While this non-conforming stance is perceived by state and county
agencies as bucking the trend, it is not a new "label" for the East
End. There is a long tradition of actively-exercised home rule within
the region. In addition, there is a history of using creative legal and
land management techniques to protect and maintain the unique
resources and character of the region.
Because transportation infrastructure is so costly and enduring, it
exerts an enormous and lasting influence on a community's design
and on a region's landscape. The homogenizing influence of
suburban transit forms and suburban development (as seen west of
Riverhead Township) would destroy the very character which
underlies this region's economy.
For this reason alone, the East End cannot ignore the dynamic and
charged relationship between land use (zoning, density) and
transportation decisions. Transportation investments by state and
county agencies have a profound effect on private land use
decisions and on local government's land use planning. However,
although this fact is not well understood, we must remember that the
converse is also true.
Without concerted, coordinated and dynamic action by the region's
local governments, the transportation problems of the East End will
worsen considerably in the foreseeable future. We face an uphill
and politically slippery battle to forestall the tendency to build new or
expanded highway capacity instead of investing in alternative transit
modes. We are acutely aware that the economic and political forces
behind development pressures have the potential to be stronger
than the public's will either to control or to shape it. It has become
increasingly evident that there is not much time left within which to
effect meaningful change in public policy, and further, the actions
required to get the job done will take enormous strength of will and
fortitude to implement.
With all of this in mind, the Council gave careful thought to the
resources at your disposal. The Action Strategies laid out in this
report were calculated to leverage the region's limited manpower
and finances to maximum benefit. Wherever possible we have
suggested specific, readily implemented actions. And, we have
designed them to solve clearly identified problems. Each set of
recommended actions is targeted to a specific mode of
transportation, and follows a brief explanation of the problems or
issues related to that mode.
AMi"" ~tr.at~yfnr 1007 _ I=llid I=nrl Tr.:a~pnrnatinn r.nllnril
PSllgji:l~
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
Rail Service
This mode of transit is considered a vital, but seriously under-used
part of the regional transportation network of the East End.
Additionally, the existing system is not fully integrated with other
modes of transportation.
The rail system is controlled by an agency whose primary focus is
providing commuter rail service from the suburbs to Manhattan. To
the Council, it seems evident that the poor scheduling and low
frequency of rail service between the East End and points west
discourage its use for either commuter or inter-regional transit
purposes. By contrast, the Long Island Rail Road's position is that
there is insufficient ridership to justify improvements in the nature or
frequency of its present level of service to the East End
communities. Further, the L1RR considers the availability of private
bus service from the East End to Manhattan to be a viable transit
alternative to improved rail service.
Research into this issue has convinced the Council that without
concerted efforts by the Association there is unlikely to be any
significant change in the L1RRlMTA position in the near future. The
L1RR's primary focus and investment are with the heavily travelled,
western commuter lines. East End stations are being improved
principally because the federal and state transportation funds used
by the L1RR to finance the purchase of new equipment and
construction require that improvements be made to the entire rail
system. The amount of money earmarked for the East End,
however, is a small fraction of the total planned investment.
Further, the improvements are geared towards improving heavy rail
commuter service on the western lines: a primary reason why the
proposed station upgrades and the planned closures are generating
so much controversy on the East End.
During the latter half of 1996, the Association adopted a strategy of
hanging together as a region in the one-on-one negotiations with
the L1RRlMTA about individual station improvements. This strategy
has garnered positive results for the communities that adhered to it
and should be continued.
The Council's investigations with rail experts led us to conclude that
rail transit service could playa more significant role in reducing
traffic congestion on the East End if improvements were made in the
timing and nature of the service and if better intermodal connections
were developed. Towards achieving that goal, the Council
proposes the following strategies:
ANi"" ~trat~ fnr 1007 _ I=:act 1="1'1 Tranc.pnriMinn t":nlln~il
D~gp A
1 . The Association should continue to issue resolutions or
position statements in response to specific situations when
dealing with the L1RR/MTA, even when the problem initially
appears to affect only one Town or Village.
a. One such action is to lobby against station closings and,
further, if the L1RR insists on closing them, to mothball
instead of dismantling the stations.
b. Another is to argue for alternative options such as
relocating stations to better sites within the hamlets
where better intermodal connections could be
developed.
2. The Association should establish an ongoing dialogue with the
L1RR/MTA on issues other than the station upgrades and the
proposed closings. There are many other improvements to the
rail service which could be made, but which will not happen
without a concerted group effort. For instance:
a. Establish a pilot program in time for the start of the
1997 summer season to improve existing service by
adjusting train schedules, and increasing the frequency
of runs during key periods.
b. Lobby for maximum use of dual-motor locomotives so as
to facilitate more direct runs from the East End to
Manhattan.
c. Lobby for an increase in the number of express runs
from Manhattan to Ronkonkoma.
d. Explore creative solutions to improve service and station
design and to foster station maintenance, e.g. permitting
ticket takers or station managers to live above the
station, and permitting concessions to operate at
stations.
e. Search for creative mechanisms such as public-private
partnerships, to finance creative solutions to improve
service and facilities.
3. The Association should search for state and federal funding to
conduct a feasibility study of introducing light rail or alternative
forms of light rail transit which would be compatible with the
existing heavy rail system.
a. This study should explore the possibility of establishing
.4t'tinn ~t~tC!gr fnr 1007 ~:lId I=nl"l T~ncpl'lrtatinn t':nlln,.,i1
PSlog.~
connecting rail links between Port Jefferson and
Riverhead and between Riverhead and the Hamptons.
The use of a part of existing State and County right-of-
ways should be considered in order to keep land
acquisition costs down.
b. The study also should examine the legal and
economic feasibility of alternative ways of initiating
and maintaining light rail service, including having
another transit authority or company operate the
service east of Lake Ronkonkoma.
Bus Transit
Bus transit on the East End is provided by a mix of public and
private companies. Public bus transit in the region is heavily
subsidized by federal, state and county funding. It must meet
certain social goals such as serving people lacking access to
automobiles. Although the County Department of Public
Works administers the public system, true control lies with the
County Legislature through the budgetary process. On the East
End, all the public buses are run by private companies under
contract with the County.
There are two major private bus companies operating on the East
End. They are perceived by some as providing a satisfactory mass
transit alternative to the rail system: a view that seems to be shared
by representatives of the L1RR. However, buses must travel the
same roadway as do cars. During peak travel times, their efficiency
in moving large numbers of people can be severely compromised
because they get caught in the same highway bottlenecks with
automobiles.
The public and private bus transit sectors are not as well-integrated
as they could be. Improvements could be made to the gaps in the
coverage provided by public and private companies, as well as to
the numbers and locations of connections between bus transit and
other forms of transportation. Unlike rail transit, the location of
routes and stops, and the scheduling of buses can be adjusted more
easily to improve overall service as well as intermodal connections.
Furthermore, the region would be better served if adjustments were
made to public routes in order to facilitate more direct connections
between employment centers or primary shopping areas and
residential neighborhoods. Scheduling could be timed to facilitate
more multi-modal trips as well as to boost ridership. Finally, the role
of bus transit as a substitute for improved rail service requires
rethinking.
AMi"" ~tr.:lltAgr fnr 1007 _ J:sact I=nrt TNlncpnm.tiN'll f".t'llln,..il
PSlgAR
The Council suggests the following strategies for improving the quality of
bus transit service and for effecting better integration with the intermodal
network: .
1 . The Association should establish an ongoing dialogue with
Suffolk County's Bus Transit Division to implement needed
changes to the bus transit system. It should be patterned after
the relationship that has been developed with the L1RR/MTA,
whereby the negotiations between individual communities
within the Association and the Transit Division are held within a
regionally-endorsed and -beneficial framework. The following
improvements could be pursued:
a. Develop better coordination between county and private
bus companies regarding scheduling and routing.
b. Find more convenient connections between residential
neighborhoods, employment centers and major shopping
areas; also with other modes of transit such as train
stations, taxi stands, parking lots, airports, ferry
terminals, etc. Expand or modify schedules, the number
of runs or route locations in order to meet seasonal
changes in local needs.
c. Re-institute feeder bus services in selected locations and
for seasonal periods of the year. Coordinate scheduling
and routing of feeder services with main line services and
with other intermodal transit links.
d. Ask for better and more frequent publicizing of routes,
schedules and fares.
e. Encourage the use of alternative vehicles and fuels
(green transit) in order to promote more cost-effective
and environmentally-sensitive service.
f. Encourage the integration of bus transit stops in local
design through the adoption of comprehensive planning
policy, and appropriate site plan standards and
subdivision regulations.
g. Explore improving operations and maintenance
through creative public/private financing arrangements.
2. The Association should develop a closer working relationship
with its legislators in the Suffolk County Legislature in order to
exert some influence over how public transit funds for bus
services are spent on the East End.
.4l"'tinn ~tn::lt"9V fnr iOO7 ~ I=::ad 1="'" TrAn~pnrt2tinn f':nl.n,.,il
P~gj:ll7
Specific projects that merit consideration are:
a. Obtain support and cooperation for a pilot project using
mini-van or mini-bus service designed to move tourists
from intermodallinks to certain designations; e.g. from
marinas or raillbus stations to wineries/restaurants and
back. The pilot should be financed, operated and
publicized through a public/private partnership.
b. Encourage the development of bus routes from central
locations on the East End to MacArthur Airport in order to
reduce car traffic to and from the airport. A similar loop
could run to the L1RR station at Ronkonkoma in order to
take advantage of the more frequent direct runs to
Manhattan which are available from that station.
3. The Association should begin reviewing the growing presence
of private taxi companies within the region. This presently is
an unregulated industry which seems to have mushroomed in
response to the growing need for transit amongst people
without automobiles. Part of the increase in demand for taxis
may be due to gaps in the bus transit service. But, it may also
be due to the transit needs of a growing segment of the elderly
population that is unable to drive any longer. In either case,
complaints about excessive fares and concerns about safety
are beginning to surface, and should not be ignored.
If the decision is made to create some form of oversight or
regulation of this industry, the Council recommends the
Association broker a region-wide standard in order to avoid a
patchwork of competing or conflicting regulations which work
against improving the transit options of all East End residents.
Ferrv Services
Ferry service on the East End serves to overcome significant
geographical and water-related barriers to land-borne transit. Two
services provide the only transportation links to and from Shelter
Island town from the North and South forks. The Cross Sound Ferry
provides the shortest connection between New England and the
East End. The Montauk to Block Island ferry provides seasonal
transportation between two tourist designations. All the ferry
services on the East End operate on public waterways. They are
regulated by different levels of government, but are privately owned
and operated.
A....i"" ~fr:2t~ fnr 1007 _ t=sact t=nri TNln~pnrtSltinn r..nlln,..il
PS!-gpA
The federal Interstate Commerce Commission, which regulated and
licensed inter-state ferries was dismantled in 1988. Since that time,
responsibility and jurisdiction over inter-state ferry transport has been
shifted to the Surface Transportation Board of the US Department of
Transportation. However, the STB-USDOT has yet to adopt licensing,
rate-making or service rules to govern these services.
Within the State of New York there appears to be little or no planning or
policy on this issue either. New York State's transportation plan,
submitted to the Governor in 1996, makes no specific recommendations
about inter-state ferry service other than to encourage high speed ferries
between suburban and urban centers of major metropolitan areas
(principally New York City and between Long Island and Connecticut).
By comparison, intra-state ferry services are controlled by the State DOT.
However, the State handed control over ferries operating entirely within
Suffolk County (such as the Shelter Island ferries) to the Suffolk County
Legislature. The ferries running to and from Shelter Island link sections
of State Route 114, yet are ineligible for federal or state funds to improve
infrastructure or operations because they are privately owned companies.
Ferry services, whether vehicular or high-speed passenger, pose a
dilemma for the East End. They perform much the same function as
public highways or bridges, but are private businesses and receive no
public subsidies or grants. They are essential to the economic well-being
of the region because they ease its geographic isolation. Yet, if allowed
to expand without limit, they threaten both to overwhelm the capacity of
the region's road network and to undermine its rural character.
Since jurisdiction over the region's ferry services resides at different
levels of government, each of which exercises control over differing
aspects of service, the East End towns and villages have depended on
local zoning and home rule powers to deal with (or prevent) the resultant
traffic impacts. However, as the Island's population continues to grow
and the economic structure of the New England region evolves, we can
expect continued economic and political pressure to expand existing ferry
services, to create new services and even to build bridges. Although
these are controversial issues, it would be to the East End's long-term
economic and environmental advantage to develop a consensus and a
coordinated strategy which responds to the need for improved transit
across Long Island Sound.
In 1990, the Transportation Division of the Suffolk County Department of
Public Works prepared a Ferrv Access Studv which found that the Port
Jefferson and Orient Point ferries on Long Island Sound were operating at
levels exceeding projections. The study predicted that access limitations
at these two terminals were such that an additional cross-sound ferry
service would be needed by the year 2010. The Studv also examined
,4,..tinn ~trat~y fnr 1007 _ I=Ro::t J=nl"l Trsmcpnrt:atinn r..nlln,..il
pagA a
potential sites for new or expanded cross-sound ferry service and
concluded that the best location would be the
Shoreham-Wading River area. However, the report did not pursue
an in-depth analysis of this site.
With all this in mind, the Council recommends the following actions:
1. The County's 1990 report should be expanded by
undertaking unbiased baseline traffic studies and economic
analysis in order to develop site specific recommendations for
locating a third cross sound ferry terminal. The study should
focus on sites where the existing road network could
accommodate access to the terminal.
Further, the concept of a third cross-sound ferry terminal
should be examined in the State's Integrated Capacity/Mobility
and Safety Study for Long Island.
2. The advantages and disadvantages of having intra-state
ferries designated part of the State highway system need to be
explored, specifically where they function in lieu of bridges
within the State.
3. Through the Council, the Association should continue to
research legal and zoning methods by which local
governments can control or mitigate traffic congestion and
other negative impacts of existing ferry services.
The goal should be to amass an unbiased, factual base of
information about the region's ferry services and their impacts
on local and regional traffic patterns. An independent analysis
of ridership trends on existing ferry services, and the degree of
intermodal connections at connecting hubs should be
conducted also.
Air Transit
The existing airport network is felt to be functioning at a level
sufficient for the present and foreseeable future. Air transportation
to and from the East End is available on a limited basis. With the
exception of Gabreski Air Base in Westhampton Beach, the existing
airport and air service facilities located within the region are
relatively small compared to airports found west of Riverhead.
These facilities are used principally by private or corporate planes
and some small commercial airlines.
4rti"" ~tnlt~y fnr 1007 _ I=sact J=nri Tn:ancpnrhltinn ~nlln,..il
PagA1n
The summer months are the time of greatest traffic at these facilities: in
terms of planes and private vehicles going to and from the airstrips. As
time goes on, improved intermodallinkages between the local airports (or
bases) and other local transportation modes may be needed to help
reduce overall traffic congestion. Presently, Gabreski Airport is well
situated to take advantage of future light rail options as well as some
intensification of commercial development.
The nearest regional airport with connections to the nation's major
airports is Islip Town's MacArthur Airport. The only waysto reach
MacArthur Airport from the East End are by private car, airport limousine
and taxi services. MacArthur Airport has experienced a growth in air
traffic in recent years. As a result, long-term parking facilities at the airport
are sometimes strained to capacity. However, the extent to which
additional growth will be permitted (or accommodated) at MacArthur
Airport is a source of considerable controversy within the Town of Islip.
Recently, plans to construct an intermodallink between the airport and
the Long Island Rail Road were scuttled for political as well as financial
reasons. Access to LaGuardia, Kennedy and Newark airports is equally
limited and more than doubly expensive.
As the East End's year round population increases, travel to and from
MacArthur, LaGuardia and the international airports is bound to increase
as well, leading to an increased demand for long-term parking not to
mention an increased level of traffic congestion. In the absence of a rail
station at the airport, bus transit ptovides an alternative: a fact that has
been recognized by the Transit Division of Suffolk County's Department of
Public Works. However, their long-standing proposal to institute a bus
route to the Ronkonkoma Rail Station, and from there to points east,
remain unfunded by the County Legislature.
In order to mitigate these access problems, the Council recommends
the following actions:
1. In the short term, the Association should press for the development
of a joint public (County) and private venture which would provide
bus or mini-bus service from the East End to MacArthur Airport and
the L1RR station at Ronkonkoma.
2. The Association should add its voice to that of the Regional Plan
Association's call for more integrated raillbuslairport transit linkages
within the New York metropolitan area.
In connection with this, the Association should encourage the
L1RR to adjust its scheduling to permit East End residents to
access this integrated network from the L1RR.
3. Within the East End, individual towns should try to encourage
intermodallinkages with local airports or airstrips where they would
reduce seasonal traffic congestion.
6....inn c::tl"l:dagr fnr 1007 ~ I=J:lIct I=nrl Tnr.nc;pnrbtinn ("':nlln,.il
P~gj:lo 11
Trails Network
Bicycle and pedestrian trails usually are viewed as being of lesser
importance to the overall transportation network than the other
modes. This was not always the case historically. In fact, the
introduction of the bicycle in the late 1800s began America's
transition from the horse-drawn carriage to the automobile. Bicycles
provided a cost-effective alternative to the horse. By 1894, close to
one-third of Suffolk County's population had a bicycle permit. And
Southold Town's Highway Commissioner imposed a $2.50 bicycle
tax which went towards the maintenance of the paths that had been
created to accommodate the newest transportation craze.
Nationally, the League of American Wheel men led the way towards
the design and construction of new roads suitable for bicycles
beginning in the 1880s. The Good Roads Movement of the 1920s
carried their work into the automobile era.
Today, bicyclists are banned from most major highways, and they
share an uneasy truce with motorists on local roads. However, on
the East End, where the economy relies heavily on the rural
landscape and its bucolic ambiance, trails have the potential to
regain some of their former prominence. Strategically-located trails
may reduce motor vehicle trips by tourists and summer residents to
view the scenery and to access the waterfront or other parks. In the
hamlets, the strategic location of trails may be instrumental in
persuading people to leave their cars and walk or bike into the
business districts, thereby reducing the congestion caused by short
car hops from one business to another. In sum, trails are seen as
being beneficial to the year-round community for the commuting,
exercise, recreational and aesthetic options they offer.
Unlike many of the suburbanized towns and villages to the west, the
East End has a unique opportunity to develop a practical, as well as
recreational, trails network around which future land development
can be integrated. In order to accomplish this, the cooperation that
currently exists between East Hampton and Southampton and
between Southold Town and Greenport Village should be expanded
throughout the East End. Further, State and County transportation
agencies and the L1RRlMTA must become an integral part of this
regional dialogue because their respective road and right-of-way
networks intersect with local roads. The current level of
coordination is not satisfactory primarily because bicycle paths are
not seen as a short-term priority by state, county and other transit
agencies.
Regional cooperation would bring benefits beyond that of just linking
trails across town and village lines. It would make possible a
6.t'tjnn c::tr.:ltqgy fnr 1007 ~l:IC!t I=nrl TI"l\I"C!pnrt~inn ("'nlln,;.i1
DqgD1,)
pooling together of other resources. Trail design, construction and
management techniques could be researched jointly, thereby avoiding
duplication of efforts and money. Uniform standards could be developed
for signage and trail design regardless of whether the trail lies within a
state, county or local right-of-way. More bicycle racks could be integrated
into site designs for businesses and intermodal transit nodes. And, better
provision could be made on trains and busses for riders to bring their
bicycles on board.
Finally, the issue of trail maintenance is one that faces all of us and, it is
one which must be resolved soon. To date, volunteers have played an
active role in the maintenance of many East End trails. However, as the
network of trails expands and becomes more heavily used, it is doubtful
that volunteers will be able to continue to play this crucial role. By
working jointly, we can explore the entire range of maintenance options
on a regional scale, including bringing back the 1890s bicycle license and
tax!
With this in mind, the Council recommends the following actions:
1. The Association should ask the Suffolk County Planning Department
to produce a digitized map of all existing County and local trails.
2. In order to effect linkages of East End trails, the Association should
authorize the Council to coordinate trail planning efforts among its
members and between the East End and the relevant state, county
and transit agencies.
a. This coordination should include writing group applications
for federal and state funding to construct interconnecting
trails.
b. Planning efforts should include exploring the costs of
installing and maintaining trails, as well as ways to finance their
operation and maintenance.
c. Trail routes should be designed to promote greater use of
intermodal transportation hubs by residents and tourists
equally.
3. The Association should keep its state and local legislators informed
of the importance of trails to the region's economy and quality of life,
and solicit their support of its regional efforts to coordinate with key
state and county agencies.
.6.rtinn ~tr.:lltosv fnr 1007 _ 1=~Cl.t I=nrl TnanCl1p^rt!ltinn ("I'll u"II'.il
P~gP 1'::t
Coordinated Road Network
Although this transportation mode is discussed last, in fact, the
highway system represents the dominant mode in the region. Most
of the region's roads are under town or village jurisdiction.
However, control over the major highways and arterial network is
fractured amongst federal, state and county transportation
departments.
The latter agencies do not have a long history of sensitivity to local
concerns such as those of the East End. Their goals essentially are
to facilitate the efficient regional movement of automotive vehicles
with the greatest speed and safety. Traffic management on State
and County roads is not always in accordance with local
preferences, particularly with regard to speed limits, signage and
road improvements.
Federal transportation policy is evolving due to the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (lSTEA) which was passed by
the U.S. Congress in 1991. Reauthorization of ISTEA is scheduled
for the fall of 1997. The Governor of New York has made lobbying
for the reauthorization a high priority within his administration.
All roads have been classified by the federal government.
The system determines the amount of federal funds that will
be spent (or reimbursed) to state, county and local highway
departments. Slightly more than 13% of the East End's local
highway mileage is eligible for federal highway aid. All 200 miles
of state and county roads (nearly 15% of the total road network) are
eligible for federal aid.
Alternative and mass transportation modes are gaining greater
prominence in transportation planning circles. But, highway
transportation still is favored over all other modes. This emphasis is
evident in the five-year plans for the East End at the state and
county levels.
There are a number of regional issues which need to be
addressed. These issues include the following:
a. The lack of local control over the setting of speed limits
on state and county roads sometimes results in travelling
speeds inconsistent with rural, hamlet development.
b. Varying speed limits on different segments of the same
road are difficult to enforce. Further, the lack of
enforcement of speed limits on state and county roads by
the respective enforcing agencies throws the burden onto
the local police. This situation encourages continued
disregard for the posted limits.
.4rtinn ~tr.:lot'"'QY fnr 1 QQ7 _ ~20Cl.t I=nrl Tr.:Ionc;.pnrt::atinn (".I'Illn~il
P:ag'" 1.4
c. Given the growing tendency of motorists to speed and
the lack of effective enforcement, there is a growing need to
use traffic-calming devices designed to lower driving speeds.
d. As bicycling increases in popularity, traffic safety demands
improved integration of bicycle lanes into road design and
construction. Public education and "share the road" signage
are not enough to maintain safety.
e. As traffic congestion worsens, there is a greater need to
designate acceptable truck routes and to improve key railroad
trestle - road intersections.
f. Roadwork undertaken in the name of improving highway
safety sometimes results in unacceptable increases in driving
speeds.
Many of the issues noted here arise out of the fact that some of the
highway design standards used by the State and the County are not
applicable to or even desirable in rural environments. But, because
the road network is controlled by different agencies, each with its
own standards, goals and objectives, these issues will not be
resolved unless the Association takes the initiative in fostering a
dialogue with these agencies.
At a Council's recent meeting, the NYSDOT indicated that they
are willing to discuss access management issues with the Council
on an ongoing basis. If this offer is accepted, this forum would
represent the first time the NYSDOT would be meeting with East
End planners on a coordinated basis to resolve issues of concern
on State right-of-ways particularly as they pertain to the location of
curb cuts, left turn lanes, traffic lights, signage and road design
standards.
The State's Integrated Capacity and Mobility Study for Nassau and
Suffolk Counties(also to be known as the Long Island
Transportation Study) will focus on management of existing and
projected traffic congestion situations throughout Long Island.
Although the original and primary focus of this Study was to the west
of Riverhead, the towns of Riverhead and Southampton have been
added to the study area. The NYSDOT proposes to deal with the
East End's transportation issues in a separate study beginning in
April of 1998.
The Council proposes the following actions:
1. The Association should accept the NYSDOTs offer to appoint
Valerie Scopaz as the Council's representative on the
Technical Advisory Committee of the Integrated Capacity and
Mobility Study for Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
6.Ninn ~t~tlilgy fnr 1007 _ I=ad I=nri TNlnc:;pnrtatinn (':nlln,.1I
Pqglil i~
2. The Association should authorize the Council to continue
to develop working relationships and understandings with
State, County and regional transportation agencies to
accomplish the following:
a. develop rural road design standards, and
b. ensure that their capital investments are compatible
with both these standards and the regional goals of
the East End towns and villages.
3. Association members should inform their State and
County legislators of the region's concerns, as noted
above, and encourage their support for shifting funds
from highway expansion projects into alternative transit
options.
4. The Association should accept the offer of the NYSDOT
to meet with the Council on a regular basis. This dialogue
should begin by inviting the NYSDOTto prepare a
presentation to the Association.
5. The NYSDOT's offer to conduct a region-wide
transportation management study beginning April 1998
should be accepted provided adequate provisions are
made to conduct needed baseline traffic surveys and
data inventories within the towns of Southold and Shelter
Island prior to the April 1998 start date. (Parity is needed
among the east end towns in order to develop an
effective traffic management plan.)
6. The Association should support State efforts for the re-
authorization of ISTEA through a resolution.
Concludina Statement
The degree of control that can be exerted by local government over
traffic congestion measures and other transportation investments on
state and county roads is limited. However, local government has a
great degree of control over its zoning map, its zoning regulations
and the management of its own road network. The congestion,
expenses and inefficiencies that characterize the East End
transportation scene are likely to worsen considerably unless
decisive and timely leadership is exercised by the East End
governments to develop a coordinated traffic management plan. The
strategies recommended here reflect the Council's best thinking for
achieving the goal of a regionally integrated and efficient
transportation network for the East End during the 21 st century.
AMi"" ~tr:ltlltQy Inr 1007 _ !:'aCl.t J:nrl Tr.:InCl.pnrtatinn r'.nlln,.il
PqgA1A.
Imolementation Strateaies bv Transoortation Mode: A Short List
This section lists specific actions which the Association can take to
implement the strategies proposed earlier.
Rail Services
1. Continue to negotiate with the L/RR/MTA both as a unified
group and individually in support of one another's positions.
2. Authorize the Council to meet with the L1RR/MTA regularly in
order to improve service to the East End, with the
highest priority being to improve frequency and quality of
service.
3. Create a subcommittee to search for funding for a feasibility
study to find the most feasible form of light rail transportation
system for the East End.
Bus Transit
1 . Authorize the Council to meet with the County's Transit
Division to implement needed changes in bus routing and
services.
2. Petition County legislators to sponsor a public/private mini-van
service as a pilot project.
3. Petition County legislators to institute bus service to MacArthur
Airport and the L1RR station in Ronkonkoma.
Ferrv Services
1 . Petition County legislators to expand the 1990 Ferrv Access
Studv to pinpoint where the existing road network will support a
third cross-sound ferry site.
2. Authorize the Council to continue research on issues identified
in Recommendations # 2 and 3 (see page 8).
Air Transit
1. Adopt a resolution endorsing the Regional Plan Association's
call for better integrated linkages between rail and bus with air
transportation hubs throughout the New York metropolitan
area.
ANi"" ~t~~ fnr 1007 l=!:Icll=nrl Tr.:r.ncpnrt!lltinn r.nllnl'il
p::aga 17
Trails Network
1. Authorize the Council to coordinate efforts to integrate a
regional trail network and to pool research information.
2. Educate state and county legislators as well as the public
about the regional trail network.
Coordinated Road Network
1. Endorse participation of the Council on the Technical
Advisory Committee of the Long Island Transportation
Study (also known as the Integrated Capacity and
Mobility Study).
2. Accept the NYSDOT's offer to:
a. meet with the Council regularly in order to improve
traffic access management on the East End.
b. conduct a transportation access/congestion
management study for the East End region starting
in April of 1998.
3. Adopt a resolution supporting the re-authorization of
ISTEA
Overall Recommendation
The Council suggests inviting the region's State and County
legislators to attend a future Association meeting where the
region's transportation issues and funding needs can be
explained in a coordinated presentation.
Conclusion
The Council is prepared to move ahead with the above-noted
recommendations at the pleasure of the Association.
.6....tinn C::tNlltQ9V fnr 1007 _ ~~c.t I=nrl Tnllnc.pnrtatinn r..nlln...il
P=lgflo 1A
~
[)
Z
UJ
o.
n.
'1:
(I)
I'
Z
~'r
I.:
_J
:J
VI
z
U
U
1-
(n
w
:-J
('J
LL
o
I-
V)
:.'i
'J
C
0)111
'U <IJ
.. C
V) . _.
Ii) _J
,.
[lC
. U
c lU
C ')
~
DO
to (0
111
eL:
mt:
U CJ
0(0
n::
c.
<U
U'
lU >.
C
~m
..;-: u.
'E
UJo
ill C)
c
I)) >-.
l~ ~
.,:~
>..,
Ii; c
<lJO
Z Q.
"'E
\Um
E :C
o
C
I..
VI
,v.
C~
UO
--<
",..
:~.!d
CJ:U
C :1
g~L
'4' l-:-
tU U
\::....
o l:
DUl
~c
~ tV
1_ o.
III
>':0
<IJ
c;=:;'
.!, c
u :J
.... Q
11..0
C
t\l~
0,0
.1=;
:J
V)
'"~
tic
'.- 0
V) __
;;>
(:i .!d
C.O
U :1
";:JO_
lU 'lo-
t:: u
U....
D.r.:
VI III
@t
1- lU
.U
.X <IJ
.!dO
t~
... C
O:J
(fJ ()
1:;0
lll""
.U--
00
0/11.::
.. ::J
en
>.
tn
III
'J
J~
VI
m
....
;:J
li
i2 hJ
W(fJO
'''err.
.~ <IJ.-
_~ ['iii
I '~U~
titJJg
~' > lU
,c _
) _..- V)
'- u--
.-- Ul
C1 Ole
. <IJ l
0...... J
oe!..J
U 'J --
o{n~t
r:r: t:
Ul ..?::
...1
o
v,
.~
U
C
.~
Z
,~
C
lU
.....
;:;
VI
L:
o
o
C
U
'p
lU
t:
o
l~..
'"
C
III
L
1-
.~
ru
:~
'\ij
J:
ill
t.JI
L
~
CJ
e
o
j:::i
lU
o
()
VI
HI
~(
C
~U
n.
'ili
r.:
o
T;,
(\)
n::
lIi
D_
c
lU
u.
:1
',1
c.
lI)
Ul
lU
C
lU
~
Ec
~u
Ul-jJ
LJ tU
, t:
l1. 0
l'<'j D.
VI
ule
c IU
1:1~
r.:
~~ 't,
0_ t:
'\ij ill
eE
!de
tnm
(lJ ll.
11' <lJ
:0
!.I,j m
o'.:~
J'n
Lc
\Uo
E).
.1: ~
v _
(n (])
.7.:
..,
()
,..
IV
I"
v
(.l~
>.
m
It::
<U
.,
lJI
.S
o.
o
lJ
VI
.",
LC
<lJo
E'P
(' III
ul.:
-.0
~ u.
- VI
<lJc
() tlJ
lil'::
<lJ....
(TO
L.......
11 ,:
'<lJ
""F
ue
.~ \U
, II
fum
U.U
:J (IJ
(fJ ,.....
.IU
lIi i'iJ
0.: 'c
.f)
c:>.
()
In ~
'- ..
HI (U
OlZ
n
Yo
L
III
,
tL
U
C
lU
"Vi
Ul
e
f)
..,
...:C
Co
(V',j::;
ElU
0; t:
U,u
lU U.
t.. V)
'U C
..?: l~
'01-
C....
\U ()
U:
<lJ<IJ
r: t
<lJ1U
fu (1.
,__ (}J
1-.0
Lfl)
U .~
~' lU
'u
"n
.=,~
Cl li
.>o!) .
'6 :;<
u,<IJ
::)2:
[I:
(\I
c
>,
<U
5:
"
.
I'
,.
"
c
o
:-="-~
'- IU
Q) t:
<lJU
e IJ.
.... '"
UI,.
l'~
IIJ !~
-,...
';; 'I-
...~ 0
0....
.C
'U <IJ
mG
_I::
1/' tU
0) 0
~<lJ
,0D
(n m
....
<II I"
t: ...J
c'n
m.c
Co
~>-
2~
fu
z
,.
,.
,.
I'
I
,.
,.
,
,.
,.
,
,
.\
r
"
,
n
l'
.
j'