HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Action Strategy for 1998 prepared by East End Transportation Council Mar-98
..--- ~
TRANSPORTATION ACTION STRATEGY FOR 1998
THE EAST END TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
of
The East End Supervisors and Mayors Association
March 1998
Authors
Neboysha Brashich, Southold
Robert Duffy, Southampton
Bernard Jacobson, Shelter Island
Lisa Liquori, East Hampton
Valerie Scopaz, Southold, Chair
INTRODUCTION
Transportation on the East End: The Challenge Ahead
Last year's Action Strategy was prefaced by an introductory essay
stressing the need for coordinated transportation planning amongst the
East Ena towns and villages. A central point was that decisions by
transportation agencies often are influenced by the cumulative impacts of
decisions made by local govemments and private businessmen. If we
want to change the types of transportation decisions being made, we have
to be willing to factor In the degree to which we are part of the problem.
We also suggested that roadside aesthetics were worthy of rank with traffic
safety for the simple reason that the stunning beauty of the East End's
landscape was one of the prime underpinnings of its economy and its
unique quality of life. We communicated a strong sense of urgency: of the
need to move quickly, and decisively, to address the core threats to our
environment and way of life, lest we lose it all.
In this year's Introduction, we wish to ratchet the pressure a few notches
up. Although our accomplishments last year were both singular and
Significant, we cannot afford to become complacent, for the forces of
development, driven by a charging bull market, have leapfrogged the Pine
Barrens into our midst. The pace of development has escalated. In some
cases, it has progressed so far as to have foreclosed certain preservation
opportunities that we once had the option of choosing. Clearfy it would be
unwise to think we have more time than we do.
As planners, our training and professional ethos require that we look
beyond the bend in the road before us. And while we sometimes are called
doomsayers, in truth what we do is think through the future results of
present day choices. As in the game of chess, there is a certain
predictability of cause and effect that govemments, communities and
Individuals ignore at their peril.
The action strategies we recommend pursuing in 1998 are aggressive, but
necessary. Some are more narrowly focusecfthan others. Most revolve
around the ever present need to improve communications between various
levels and agencies of govemment. We live in a world where speCialists
often overwtielm us between the level of detail and the jargon 0 their trade.
Often it's difficult to maintain a generalist's perspective. In this report we
have tried to pare transportation issues down to their essentials and to
show the context within which our strategies were made.
1
The following strategies are proposed:
Rail Service
In last year's Action Strategy report the Council concluded that rail service
could playa more significant role in reducing traffic congestion on the East
End. At the least, two types of responses are needed: improvements have
to be made in the timing and nature of the service and better intermodel
connections have to be developed.
Since the summer of 1997, the L1RR has been included as a working (non- .
voting) member of the Council. We are hopeful that the dialogue which has
ensued from this close working relationship will have significant results in
the near future. The strategies recommended below reflect our desire to
build on the progress that has been made.
. Encourage the L1RR to go ahead with the East End Transportation
Study, because this study will develop long and short term
recommendations and strategies to provide more effective rail
service on the East End. This plan also will increase train utilization,
encourage inter- and multi-modal connections at train stations,
present altemative uses for station buildings and reduce traffic
congestion throughout the East End.
Encourage the L1RR to institute interhamlet service within the East
End region. .
Continue to work with the L1RR to create off-road trails alongside
existing L1RR right-of-ways, particularly where the ROW width is wide
enougn to help accommodate additional uses.
Continue the dialog we started during 1996 regarding the station
upgrades and the Introduction of new rail cars and locomotives. The
discussion should include:
improved scheduling
increased use of new locomotives
the development of creative partnerships to foster and
finance more efficient use of existing train stations,
including the introduction of public/private partnerships
to provide needed services (bicycle storage and rentals,
newspaper and food concessions, security, etc.)
.
.
.
Bus Transit
One of our priority strategies last year was to establish an ongoing
dialogue with the Suffolk County Bus Transit Division so as to effect
needed changes to the public bus transit system.
2
,
Some Council members have been working with SCDPW on specific local
problems, but the broader discussion of gaps in the regional bus transit
system has been less than it could be. As of January 1998 the Suffolk
County Department of Public Works became a workmg member of the
Council thereby setting the stage for an improved dialogue between the
County and the East End.
The recommended strategies for 1998 echo those of 1997. They include:
. Encourage the County to work with local government and the private
sector to attract entrepreneurs to provide bus, van or mini-bus
services designed to accomplish the following objectives:
a) move residents and tourists from the East End to
regional airports, and the L1RR stations, particularly
its hub at Ronkonkoma
b) facilitate movement of tourists from intermodal hubs
such as ferry, train and bus stations, airports and central
parking fields to specific destinations such as marinas,
wineries, restaurants and special event sites.
Ferrv Services
Ferry service on the East End continues to generate considerable
controversy and debate. By way of example, the service is considered an
absolute necessity by Shelter Island, a desirable economic stimulus by the
Village of Greenport, a needed but burdensome use that is overtaxing the
roads within Southold, and an unwanted threat in East Hampton. The
situation is further complicated by the introduction of high-speed Rassenger
only ferries and gambling boats that operate offshore. However, for all tfle
differel"!ces of perspective and opinion, the Council agreed on the following
strategies:
.
Encourage the establishment of a dialogue between the States of
New York and Connecticut regarding the land based impacts of
existing and proposed ferry services.
Support the proposed Tri-State Ferry Forum currently being planned
under the auspices of the American Planning Association.
Petition the County Legislatureto authorize the County Planning and
Transportation departments to update the 1990 Ferry Access Study.
Lobby State, County govemments and the private sector to improve
intermodal connections at ferry terminals.
Continue researching ways local govemments can exert greater
control over land based impacts of waterbome transit.
.
.
.
.
3
,
Air Transit
Air transit issues within the East End are not as high a priority as the issues
discussed earlier. While the integrated expansion and re-development of
Gabreski Air Base remains a matter of interest within the Westhampton
Beach area, and the expansion of East Hampton Airport is the focus of
intense debate at the moment, the Council recommends only the following
strategy at this time:
. Continue to press for better intermodal connections with MacArthur
Airport and other large airports within the New York metropolitan
area.
Trails Network
The Council's discussions about the development of the trails network have
been overshadowed by concem over ferry, rail and road issues. Progress
has been made within each town as trails are being implemented, many'
funded through ISTEA grants. The design and creation of off-roads trails
has moved more slowly than that of marked bicycle trails alongside existing
roads. Off-road trails require an expenditure of time and money since
easements or fee title to private property must be obtained.
Significant policy' shifts within the L1RR and its sister organization, Metro
North, will permit easier access to trains by bicyclists, particularly on the
less congested North Fork runs. It is hoped that the combination of greater
ease of access, more frequent service and increased promotion of "oicycle-
trains" will convince the ever growing ranks of bicycle enthusiasts to travel
to the region without their cars.
The Council's recommended strategy for 1998 is to continue its 1997
actions, to wit
.
Ask the Suffolk County Department of Plannin$l to produce a
digitized map of existing and proposed recreational trails.
Continue coordination between towns and villages to effect linked
trails, apply for regional funding to design and maintain new trails.
Keep State and County legislators aware of the importance of
recreational trails to the region's quality of life and economy as well
as to provide alternative methods of transportation for those inclined
to use it.
.
.
Coordinated Road Network
The Council spent a great deal of time and effort towards resolving road
network issues. Significant progress was made. At the end of 1997, the
NYSDOT became a working member of the Council. A liaison between the
4
Council and all the divisions within Region 10's administrative office in
Hauppauge has been appointed. The Council's Arterial Management
report which was adopted by the Association and forwarded to the
NYSDOT has become the primary guide to ongoing discussions between
the Council and the NYSDOT. This dialogue will be crucial to shaping the
State's policy and construction decisions m the near and long term. It is
probably safe to say that the Council and Re~ion 10 are engaged in an
unprecedented (for Long Island) format for discussing and resolving
multiple local transportation problems within a regional format. Through
the Council's presence on the Long Island Transportation Plan-2000, this
concept is gaming exposure and attracting a great deal of interest by
western towns and villages.
The Council has been keeping an eye on the progress of the Scenic
Byways Corridor Managemenl Program which is being drafted within the
Town of Southold under the aegis of the NYSDOT. One of the goals of this
project is to produce a model Corridor Management program within the
State of New York.
The Council recommends building on this work by pursuing the following
strategies during 1998:
. Continue the dialogue with the NYSDOT to develop regional arterial
management policies and procedures that are more compatible with
the East End's environment.
Encourage the NYSDOT and the USDOT to review the region's road
rankings under the Federal Aid program.
Develop a grant proposal for New York State regional scenic byway
designation of key roads within the East End.
Encourage the SCDPW to engage in a regional dialogue about
revising the County's standard arterial management policies and
procedures within the East End.
Concluding Statement
The foundation built by the Council during 1997 sets the stage for an
exciting and productive 1998. The working relationships developed with
the L1RR and the NYSDOT have been immensely constructive. We have
exchanged ideas, debated issues, and engaged m a fair amount of
negotiation. This hastaken time and will continue to do so, but we are
beginning to see changes in key places.
1997 was a year of dialogue. We hope 1998 will be another for we have
come to understand the I)enefits that accrue from continuing discussion of
issues Of common concern. Because of this process, we have obtained a
mutual understanding of each others' needs, priorities, constraints and
resources.
.
.
.
5
I
The dialogue that takes place for just two hours every month has taught us
that situations are often more complicated than they appear on the surface,
and that within the Council there are conflicting opinions about key issues,
We've been reminded that entrenched bureaucracies take time to change,
but that key individuals within those bureaucracies can be effective
catalysts in our behalf. A mutual respect has developed among a core
group of Council members which has translated into invaluable good will
towards the East End by participating agencies. In fact, we are finding that
bureaucracy aside, we essentially are not alone in our fight to preserve the
physical and intangible qualities that define the East End. If anything, by
reaching out as a group, we have gained allies, respect and even
admiration.
The Council looks forward to pursuing the strategies noted above during
1998.
6