HomeMy WebLinkAboutTown of East Hampton Comprehensive Plan-Transportation Element by L K McLean Assoc Aug-97
"
1
,
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
"
..
,
')
"
"
TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT
"
Prepared By:
L.K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
t
AUGUST 1997
,
f<<)V -, I
.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE
Executive Summary S-1
. 1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Overview of Circul~tion 2-1
3.0 Mobility Deficiencies and Potential Solutions 3-1
.
3.1 Peak Tourist Season 3-1
3.2 NY Route 27 3-3
3.3 "Downtown" Areas 3-4
3.4 Other Mobility Deficiencies 3-4
. 3.5 Special Events 3-5
3.6 Public Input Process 3-6
3.7 Future Growth and Development 3-7
3.8 Potential Alternative Solutions 3-9
3.9 Experience in Other Locales 3-10
t 4.0 Rail Transportation 4-1
4.1 Existing Service and Ridership 4-1
4.2 Capital Projects 4-2
4.3 Needs and Deficiencies 4-3
. 4.4 Recommendations 4-4
5.0 Bus Transportation 5-1
5.1 Ridership Characteristics 5-1
. 5.2 Funding 5-1
5.3 Bus Routes and Ridership 5-2
5.4 Bus Service 5-3
5.5 Needs 5-4
5.6 Recommendations 5-5
.
.
.
.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE
6.0 Ferries 6-1
6.1 Existing Service 6-1
. 6.2 Potential Service 6-2
6.3 Potential Service to Montauk 6-3
6.4 Potential Ferry Activity 6-21
6.5 Recommendations 6-21
" 7.0 Airports 7-1
7.1 Town Airport 7-1
7.2 Montauk Airport 7-2
7.3 Recommendations 7-2
.
8.0 Highways 8-1
8.1 Highway Network 8-1
8.2 Traffic Volumes 8-2
l 8.3 Highway Capacity 8-5
8.4 Traffic Accidents 8-6
8.5 Future Capacity & Safety Improvements 8-8
8.6 Other Highway Needs 8-8
8.7 "Traffic Calming" 8-13
. 8.8 Recommendations 8-16
9.0 "Downtown" Areas 9-1
9.1 Mobility 9-1
9.2 Parking 9-2
. 9.3 Pedestrian Travel 9-3
9.4 Needs and Deficiencies 9-4
9.5 Recommendations 9-4
10.0 Bicycles 10-1
.
10.1 Current and Planned Bicycle Facilities 10-1
10.2 Needs and Deficiencies 10-2
10.3 Recommendations 10-3
,
.
.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
. TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE
11.0 Other Modes of Travel 11-1
. 11.1 Taxis 11-1
11.2 Rollerblading 11-1
11.3 Recommendations 11-2
12.0 Demand Management 12-1
.
12.1 Clean Air Act Amendments 12-2
12.2 Demand Management Techniques 12-3
12.3 Applicable Techniques for East Hampton 12-8
12.4 Recommendations 12-10
.
13.0 Land Use Plan
13.1 Relationship to Transportation 13-1
13.2 Recommendations 13-2
~
14.0 Regional Considerations 14-1
14.1 Relationship to Town of Southampton 14-1
1996 Comprehensive Plan Up-Date
. 14.2 East End Issues 14-2
14.3 Recommendations 14-6
15.0 Funding and Implementing of Recommendations 15-1
. 15.1 Transportation Improvement Program 15-2
15.2 Town Funding 15-2
15.3 PublicIPrivate Partnerships 15-6
15.4 Recommendations 15-8
. Bibliography
Appendix A Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Summaries
,
.
"
UST OF EXHIBITS
.. Exhibit No. Title Follows Page No.
2-1 Location Plan 2-1
2-2 Study Area 2-1
2-3 License Plate Study 2-2
. 3-1 Average Daily Traffic by Month 3-1
3-2 East Hampton Time Delay 3-4
3-3 Amagansett Time Delay 3-4
3-4 Montauk Time Delay 3-4
4-1 Airports and Railroad Stations 4-1
. 5-1 Bus Routes 5-1
6-1 Potential Terminal Sites-Ferry Service to Montauk 6-3
7-1 Town Airport Layout Plan 7-2
8-1 Federal Aid Eligible Roadways 8-2
8-2 1996 Average Daily Traffic Volumes 8-2
. 8-3 Count Station No.4 Data - Eastbound 8-3
8-4 Count Station No.4 Data - Westbound 8-3
8-5 Count Station No. 5 Data - Eastbound 8-3
8-6 Count Station No.5 Data - Westbound 8-3
8-7 Count Station No. 26 Data - Eastbound 8-3
t 8-8 Count Station No. 26 Data - Westbound 8-3
8-9 1965, 1982 and 1996 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Comparison 8-3
8-10A,B Existing Turning Movement Volume Map 8-4
8-11 Arterial Level of Service 8-5
. 8-12 High Accident Locations 8-7
8-13, 8-13A Conceptual North Main Street Realignment Alternatives 8-16
10-1 Bicycle Facilities 10-2
14-1 Vision Goals - "Southampton Tomorrow-Transportation" 14-1
.
..
"
.
.
LIST OF TABLES
.
Table No. Title Follows Page No.
2-1 Origin of Eastbound Vehicles - Route 27 2-2
2-2 Origin of Eastbound Vehicles - AM Count 2-3
. 2-3 Origin of Eastbound Vehicles - PM Count 2-3
3-1 Comparison of Summer and "Off Season' Traffic 3-2
Volumes of Route 27
3-2 Future Level of Service with Potential Traffic 3-9
Growth along Route 27
. 4-1 LIRR Service to Montauk 4-1
5-1 Bus Routes and Frequencies 5-2
5-2 Bus Ridership 5-2
6-1 Ferry Traffic Vehicular Breakdown 6-13
6-2 Preliminary Capacity Analysis-Ferry at 6-15
. Fort Pond Bay
6-3 Preliminary Capacity Analysis-Ferry at 6-15
Lake Montauk
6-4 Preliminary Capacity Analysis-Ferry at Napeague 6-15
6-5 Calculated Queue Lengths at Selected Intersections 6-15
, 6-6 Level of Service Using Peak Hour Adjustment due 6-16
to Ferry Traffic Surge
6-7 Potential Effects of Montauk Ferry on Route 27 6-17
Level of Service
8-1 1965, 1982, and 1996 ADT Comparisons 8-3
8-1A Comparison of Summer and "Off Season" Level 8-5
. of Service on Route 27
8-2 Preliminary Capacity Analysis (Saturday) 8-6
8-3 High Accident Location Summary 8-6
8-4 Roadway Summary - General Characteristics
and Conditions 8-12
. 8-5 Potential Improvements at High Accident Locations 8-16
12-1 Types of Parking Management Tactics 12-7
15-1 Key Capital Improvements 15-1
.
.
.
.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.
The Town is at a "crossroads" in terms of developing a solution to its worsening traffic
congestion in the summer season. Currently, traffic volumes on highways such as Route 27 are
.
at, or near, capacity, often for many hours of the day. Average summer traffic growth increases
on the Town's roadways exceed 8 percent per year, which causes congestion levels to increase
on more roadway segments every year. Typical average annual traffic growth elsewhere on
.
Long Island is on the order of 1-2 percent per year.
In an attempt to preserve the rural character of the Town, the public mandate is to avoid the
~
following roadway improvements:
Adding thru travel lanes on existing roads
.
Constructing "bypass" roads to congested routes
Installing traffic signals
Encouraging use of existing "bypass" roads
.
In this context, the Town must, therefore, look to other modes of travel, particularly rail and
.
bus, to accommodate summer traffic conditions and thereby attempt to manage the overwhelming
demand on its roadway system. This is consistent with the goals of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and with other, similar
,
5-1
.
..
.
areas of the country such as Cape Cod. It will hopefully enable the Town to avoid the
traditional policy of widening roads, only to see the additional capacity exhausted when more
vehicles are attracted to the improved roadways, as has occurred in western Suffolk County,
Nassau County, and in New York City since the 1920's.
.
"
Similar to the educational efforts organized in the past for recycling, formal programs should
be established to inform the public, including children, of the benefits of alternative modes of
travel to the automobile.
.
.
One of the principal reasons for updating the Transportation Element of the Town's
Comprehensive Plan is the proposal to establish new ferry service from Montauk to Connecticut.
On the surface this would appear to be a benefit, in that a ferry has the potential for
accommodating trips now made by automobile. However, many of these trips will be "new"
trips generated by casinos in Connecticut as well as recreational facilities in Montauk.
.
.
Capacity analyses were conducted for several ferry "scenarios" of varying intensity and
frequency of service at three potential terminal sites. The results indicate that a new ferry has
the potential to cause a significant degradation in levels of service at roadway intersections
providing access to a new terminal site. In many cases, these levels are already poor. As a
result, it is recommended that this ferry service not be instituted.
.
.
8-2
.
II
II
Similarly, it is recommended that potential new development projects in the Town be limited in
size in order not to cause significant degradation in levels of service. Roadway mitigation
measures for developments would need to avoid the aforementioned improvements deemed
undesirable to the public.
.
41
KEY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Hi~hway System (see Pa~es 8-14 and 8-16)
Work with NYSDOT to update list of Federal-Aid roadways - suggest Annual Average
Daily Traffic (AADT) as one criteria, possibly 5,000 vehicles as threshold.
Improve safety at High Accident Locations - implement improvements on Table 8-5.
Update and review this data on a regular basis.
Improve Route 27 by rehabilitating pavement and installing left turn lanes where
appropriate. Improve Route 114 (alignment and speed zone signing).
Improve vertical clearances beneath LIRR overpass at four potential locations.
Implement safety improvements on other roads (Table 8-4). Construct shoulders where
appropriate, particularly where significant bicycling activity occurs or is anticipated.
Consider reduction in pavement widths where appropriate to create shoulders. Construct
safety paths/sidewalks where significant pedestrian activity occurs.
.
')
.
.
.
Rail (see Pae:es 4-4 and 4-5)
Conduct a major study to address means of improving New York City and Intra-South Fork
~
5-3
"
.
.
service. Improve intermodal coordination (e.g. with bus service, taxi, automobile parking and
drop-off, bicycles and pedestrians).
.
Bus Service
Develop a long-range Transit Development Plan (TOP) to address utilization of public bus transit
to address traffic congestion and parking problems. The plan should evaluate the following
elements:
.
o
A demand responsive (dial-a-ride) type service
Shuttle bus service from "fringe" parking areas to beaches and business districts
Shuttle bus service between motels, shopping areas and tourist attractions
o
.
o
o Coordination of these services (i.e. transfer points) and with rail service
:)
.
As an interim, low cost demonstration project, establish summer weekend trial shuttle service
to connect downtown areas, beaches, and shopping areas. Evaluate the success of this operation,
and consider expansion to incorporate rail stations as well.
.
Work with Suffolk County Transit to optimize routing and scheduling of existing bus routes.
Explore alternatives to market existing service and potential new routes.
.
AiI;ports
At both the Town's airport in Wainscott, and at the private Montauk Airport, implement only
specific, previously identified, improvements which will not encourage growth in operations and
t
5-4
t
.
cause negative environmental impacts.
.
.
Bic;ycles
Take steps to implement the bicycle system identified in Exhibit 10-1, after conducting a study
of affected roadways to ascertain whether appropriate pavement widths and signs can be
provided.
.
Prioritize bicycle education in schools. Provide additional bicycle facilities at beaches, shopping
areas and train stations.
.
,.
Downtown Areas
In the business districts of East Hampton Village, Amagansett and Montauk, parking spaces are
very often in short supply in the summer season. The proliferation of vehicles circulating
through these areas in search of parking spaces contributes to traffic congestion. Fringe parking
areas, desirably in existing, under-utilized parking fields should be established. Transportation
from the parking areas to businesses, (e.g. shuttle bus services) should be provided when the lots
are established.
.
.
,
Evaluation of the proposed summer weekend shuttle bus service will be instrumental 10
determining sites for fringe parking areas.
"
5-5
11
.
.
Other Modes of Travel
Regulate taxi service and fares. Institute rollerblading/skating safety education measures.
.
Fundini! and Imnlementation
The Town should aggressively pursue its fair share of public funding for the highway and transit
projects (including studies) identified in this report, through the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) process. The Town should maintain its level of funding for its own highway
capital and maintenance projects in future years. Public/private partnership techniques, including
Transportation Improvement Districts, should be utilized to supplement public funding sources.
.
.
.
Town governments, Town residents and the business community must work together to develop
the resources to implement the recommendations of this report.
.
As noted previously, the rail and bus modes of travel offer the best promise for alleviating the
effects of current and future highway congestion in the Town. Strong leadership and cooperation
among Town officials, and agencies such as NYSDOT, Suffolk County Transit and the Long
Island Rail Road, is required to transform the recommended improvements to reality.
.
.
..
5-6
1
.
1.0
INfRODUCTION
.
.
In the mid-1960's, a comprehensive plan was prepared for the Town and Village of East
Hampton, New York. This comprehensive plan, presented in two parts in 1966 and 1967, was
prepared by Edwin S. Voorhees and Son, Inc. The Town of East Hampton is now embarking
on an up-date to this comprehensive plan, the first since the mid-1960's. This report is an up-
date of the transportation component of the 1966 plan.
.
.
The Town has undergone major changes since the mid-1960's. In addition to experiencing a
significant growth in year round population, the Town has seen ever increasing growth in tourist
activity, primarily in the summer season. The population of the Town in the mid-1960's was
approximately 10,000 year round residents. That figure grew to slightly above 16,000 residents,
based on the 1990 census. Although there are no available statistics regarding population during
the summer, it is felt that this figure is on the order of four or five times the year round
population.
.
.
.
Prior to performing any activities associated with the development of this report, a Technical
Advisory Committee was formed. The purpose of this Committee was to guide the course of
the project and assure that the type and extent of work tasks undertaken were sufficient to
achieve the goal of developing a comprehensive Transportation Plan. The Committee was
composed of members of the Town of East Hampton Town Board, Town Planning Department,
Town Highway Department, the Village and Planning Boards of the Village of East Hampton,
.
.
1-1
it
.
.
the Village of East Hampton Highway Department, Suffolk County Department of Public Works,
the New York State Department of Transportation, the Long Island Rail Road, Concerned
Citizens of Montauk, and the project consultant, L.K. McLean Associates, P.C.
.
.
Public input was a key consideration in developing the recommendations for this comprehensive
Transportation Plan. Public participation was solicited during meetings of the five Citizen
Advisory Committees, each representing a different portion of the Town of East Hampton. In
addition, a Town Board meeting was held to present the draft report for public comments.
.
.
It is no secret to both residents of East Hampton and residents of surrounding towns, that the
key concern related to Townwide transportation is the improvement in mobility during the
summer season. A significant portion of the work undertaken during the course of this study
was related to this key issue.
.
Several transportation studies have been prepared since 1966 to address the growing congestion
prevalent in East Hampton and other East End Towns. These include the following:
.
o
Up-date of Traffic Circulation Plan, Town of East Hampton, prepared by the Suffolk
County Department of Planning (Transportation Division) in April 1983. This report
served as an interim up-date of the traffic circulation section of the Town's
Comprehensive Plan. The traffic circulation section of the report encompassed existing
transportation conditions in the Town and Village of East Hampton.
.
"'
1-2
.
.
.
o
South Fork Transportation Study (February 1986). This transportation study was
prepared by Vollmer Associates for the New York State Department of Transportation.
The study area for this report was east of the Shinnecock Canal, including portions of
.
the Town of Southampton, and the Village of Southampton, and the entire Town of East
Hampton.
.
o Montauk Arterial Highway Capacity Study prepared by L.K. McLean Associates, P.C.
(1986). This report assessed existing conditions at key intersections in the Montauk area.
.
It developed recommendations for traffic mitigation measures which could be
implemented during future development occurring in the Montauk area.
..
.
o Blueprint for Our Future (Report to Governor Mario Cuomo) by the East End Economic
and Environmental Task Force (1993). This study identified recommendations, including
.
those related to transportation, necessary to strengthen the East End economy while
preserving its environment.
.
o Southampton Tomorrow - Transportation Study (1996). This draft technical report was
prepared for the Town of Southampton. Similar to this report, it is an up-date of the
.~
transportation element of the Town's comprehensive plan. The report is still currently
in draft status, pending review and development of final recommendations.
.
1-3
.
.
2.0
OVERVIEW OF CIRCULATION
.
The Town of East Hampton is located at the extreme eastern end of Long Island's South Fork
. as depicted in Exhibit 2-1. As can be seen on the location map (Exhibit 2-2), the Town is
approximately 22 miles long, and varies in width from less than one mile to almost eight miles
wide. Within the limits of the Town are two Villages. These are the Village of East Hampton,
.
which is entirely surrounded by the Town, and a portion of the Village of Sag Harbor, most of
which actually lies within the Town of Southampton, which borders East Hampton to the west.
.
.
As noted previously, the population in the Town rises significantly during the summer tourist
season. Although in the past, the season extended from Memorial Day to Labor Day, recent
years have seen an extension in this peak tourist period. An approximation of monthly traffic
destined for the Town of East Hampton can be made from a continuous traffic count station on
Route 27 in Southampton. Data from this count station is presented in Section 3.1.
.
.
In the peak tourist season, sightseers and summer residents travel to the Town primarily by
automobile, bus and rail. Some trips are also made by air to the Town airport in Wainscott and
by limited ferry service from New London to Montauk.
.
The overwhelming majority of automobile traffic travelling into the Town does so on one of
two State roadways. These are Route 27 and Route 114. Route 114 carries traffic from the
Village of Sag Harbor and Shelter Island, which are located northwest of the Town. Route 27
.
2-1
,.
v
..
~c:::
"
.
"'.~
NassQu
County
Brookhaven
Islip
~
ATLANTIC
o C E A N
.
.
'"
.
.
.
TOWN OB' BAST B'.&~TON
'l'BAMII'OBTATJOJr PLAK UPDAD
LOO.&TJOJr I'LAH
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
IDII'J.DY .'" L.LM.&. PnJ. ".. IO-OOO-t,
.
2-1
Island
Riverhead
PROJECT LOCATION
r
...
~
[,
So
o
~~~
}I
"
c
[
.
f"
...
~
~~
i
L.
r
t
[
r ~1l:-<.::O
"'~"--','-
[
,.,.
.
w
( /'
&
\r
~
t
r
t"
t
GRAPHIC SCALE
-
4000 0 2000 4000 i
~
1$000
I
"'"
I
DRAFT
( [N FEET )
inch = 5280ft.
"""'-"""
BlSEll.API\SCOllF'It.[OFllOl.l.oMERlCANDiGlTA1.CARTOGRAPHY.INC
QI.;AORt.NGLES flLES Of Wl,y 28. 1996. THE TO\ll'N Of EAST HAMPTON
PL/lNNlNGOEP/lPTMENlIoW'SRE'/lSEDSEPTrIolBERT!l9ZSYR.R.F',AND
SU'FOLKCOUNTYFlEALF>ROF'EmYTAXIolAP-KEYlUIPQFJUNE1. lS75.
"
/'
./
// c
..ll
....
.....~i~s1~:~f::........~.........~.
..... ,:.::.':'-' ...,,,\
,...,~-; .
,
21:;
~;q
:r;,:
~!C
1..;,__
~I~
,-
MONTAUK BEACH
f~ -'--, '--.
~.p"-~
~",...,-:
"'-"~" ::' ~::
::.:-:;::-::::::-
:-,~:=:8 i,-,,'
-~--
'-;';'.\
"'<<.., <-:?:" :~:::---.
-~':"~:':::. '>...,
/
FIREPUCE
",,'
.---'
>4,
,.,
,>'
Nili:DER
HIll.
,.~,." .:-." '
-- .. -.;..?9:"
"
;/
~"
-
--
I:
,:
,
\ -'
_.~~~
~.
:\ ~'--.,-
~'Jf<"'"
-
-=.:
:....
~ ,
i
l
I
~J
..'
,.
.r.:.'
~,...
~~_?(~
SF.ArB H.\.MPTOr\'
/"
DlT('H
PL\mS
. .
-------
1
----~
~~
PROSPECT
HIll
MONTAUK
POIf',j
",
.,
.,~ ..
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
STUDY ARPA
Exhibit No.
1. K. McLEAN
February 1997
ASSOCIATES, P.C.
L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16
2-2
"
< -
,
"J,.
/','
'-.
___.._/ r'
NAPF.,U:l;E :.-
-....
PKOMISEO LA~D
(0-
_~~ ,,,,'Oh.
'";,.?~,~
_/
~,., ','-
h.'-'
-",--
EAST HAMPTON BE,\CH
~._.. .- -
;',~J-';~;'~ .:y;::;.:;
"-
.-/-
!!2
~...,.....-::""
.
.
at the Southampton-East Hampton border carries about 29,000 vehicles on an average summer
day, which is about 2-112 times the traffic on Route 114 at the East Hampton-Village of Sag
Harbor line.
.
.
In order to obtain an overview of the origins of traffic on Route 27 on a summer Saturday,
license plates of vehicles entering the East Hampton business district were recorded.
Approximately 500 license plates were obtained in each of two periods, on a Saturday morning
and during a Saturday mid-afternoon. The State Department of Motor Vehicles provided names
and addresses of the people to whom the vehicles were registered, for those vehicles registered
in New York State. Exhibit 2-3 is a map summarizing the origin (location of registration) of
the vehicles observed in the study.
.
.
.
Table 2-1 provides a comparison of origin data with similar data collected in 1965. The 1965
data was obtained through motorist interviews. The 1996 data was adjusted to delete non-
matching plate numbers, as well as New York plates held by out-of-state owners, in order to
better estimate specific trip origins. The 1996 results shown in Table 2-1 indicate a substantial
decrease in trips originating within the Village of East Hampton, and increases in the following
trip origins:
o New Jersey
o Westchester Area (Westchester and Rockland Counties)
o "Other" Areas (comprised primarily of Upstate New York, New England States and
States south or west of New Jersey)
.
.
.
2-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 2-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ORIGIN OF EASTBOUND VEmCLES - ROUTE 27 (EAST HAMPTON VILLAGE)
AUGUST 17, 1996 AUGUST 17,1996
TRIP ORIGINS AUGUST 14, 1965 AM COUNT PM COUNT
0/0 0/0 0/0
SUFFOLK COUNTY 38.4 34.3 31.9
NEW YORK CITY (5 BOROUGHS) 24.3 20.2 21.3
VILLAGE OF EAST HAMPTON 16.3 4.8 4.0
NASSAU COUNTY 13.2 10.3 12.7
NEW ffiRSEY 3.9 8.0 9.2
WESTCHESTER AREA 2.6 6.5 6.9
OTHER 1.3 15.9 14.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0
,.....'1,... 01'07 n'2.J:;o Ok..
DMVSMARY.WK3
..
u
I
"
,
It.;.
~
~
~
,~
131~16.61%1
TOWN 011' EAST 'A A M"PTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN u.r'DATE
UPSTATE NEW YORK
~
J'!
~
r
J
, ,.
C
.1
"
~
~
l
NEW JERSEY
17.29%18.07%1
BRONX
1 0.69%1 0.73%1
13.=12.7ST.1
CONNECTICUT
10.'7%10.55%1 OUT -OF-COUNTRY
13.'3%I..28%IOTHER NEW ENGlAND STATES
10.87%1 0.00%1 MASSACHUSETTS
12.08%12.02%1 NEW YORK REGISTRATION / OUT-OF-STATE
16.94%110.09%1 NEW YORK REGTSTRATlONs....Q:.O~-MATCHING)
L1C11lNSE PLATE STUDY
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
FBBRUABY lW1 L.LM-L ProJ. No. SO-OOO-US
-.w...
2-3
1.39'-; 2.02"
ROCKlAND
1 0.87%1 0.55% I
WESTCHESTER
15.03%15.50% I
OWNER
-"
NEW YORK CITY
1 0.76% 9.54:r.
LON G
ISLA.ND
SOUND
I 0.52% I 0.55%1
STATEN ISLAND
Nassau
County
t
?,x.
~
~
~
Island
Brookhaven
Riverhead
POINTS SOUTH AND WEST
3....7,. O.92X
5.03% 5.87%
PRo.ECT LOCATION
1.741.; 1.65%
2.60% 4.04~
4.86'; 4.95%
6.25% 4.40%
9.38% 11.197;
2.26% 2.02% EAST HAMPTON POST OFFICE BOXES
.~
.r
~
~
I
A'TLANTIC
o C E A N
2.08% 1.47% EAST HAMPTON VILLAGE
LEGEND
8.33% 6.4'" EAST HAMPTON (EAST OF SURVEY LOCATION)
AM PM
PERCENTAGE OF CARS 19.38% 1".'9%1
2.78% 1.10% EAST HAMPTON (WEST OF SURVEY LOCATION)
.
Detailed breakdowns of the 1996 morning and afternoon data appear in Tables 2-2 and 2-3.
.
.
Suffolk County Transit operates regularly scheduled bus service to and within the Town of East
Hampton. Regularly scheduled private service is provided primarily by two operators, Hampton
Jitney and Hamptons on my Mind. Both of these operators provide service to Midtown
Manhattan from Montauk.
.
.
The Long Island Rail Road operates regularly scheduled service to the Town of East Hampton
via the Montauk Branch of the railroad. This year round service is supplemented by additional
weekend service during the summer season.
.
In addition to the aforementioned Town airport in Wainscott, a private airport which
accommodates small planes is located in Montauk.
.
The United States Census data from 1990 indicates that approximately 80 percent of Town
residents utilize an automobile, truck or van to journey to work. Approximately 10 percent
participate in some sort of carpool on their trip to work, and approximately 6 percent utilize
public transportation, which within the Town is provided solely by bus or rail. Within the
Village of East Hampton, approximately 68 percent of residents utilize an automobile, truck, or
van for their journey to work, II percent participate in carpools and 8 percent utilize public
transportation.
.
.
.
2-3
.
.
TABLE 2-2
· TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ORIGIN OF VEHICLES - AM COUNT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TOTAL NUMBER OF CARS RECORDED = 524
TOWNIHAMLETNILLAGEIETC... NUMBER OF CARS %
BABYLON 10 1.91
BRONX 4 0.76
BROOKHAVEN 28 5.34
CONNECTICUT 19 3.63
DUTCHESS 2 0.38
EAST HAMPTON POST OFFICE BOXES 13 2.48
EAST HAMPTON VILLAGE 12 2.29
EAST HAMPTON-mAST OF SURVEY LOCATION) 48 9.16
EAST HAMPTON (WEST OF SURVEY LOCATION) 16 3.05
HUNTINGTON 16 3.05
ISLIP 15 2.86
KINGS COUNTY 8 1.53
MASSACHUSETTS 5 0.95
NASSAU 54 10.31
NEW JERSEY 42 8.02
NEW YORK CITY 62 11.83
OTHER NEW ENGLAND STATES 18 3.44
OUT -OF-COUNTRY 1 0.19
POINTS SOUTH AND WEST 20 3.82
OUEENS 29 5.53
RIVERHEAD 1 0.19
ROCKLAND 5 0.95
SMITHTOWN 7 1.34
SOUTHAMPTON 36 6.87
SOUTHOLD 3 0.57
STATEN ISLAND 3 0.57
UPSTATE NEW YORK 18 3.44
WESTCHESTER 29 5.53
TOTAL 524 100.00
*"* NEW YORK STATE REGISTRATION I OUT-OF-STATE OWNER AND
NEW YORK REGISTRATIONS (NON-MATCHING) EXCLUDED FROM TOTAL
02/11/97 03:54 PM
AMCOUNTWK3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 2-3
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ORIGIN OF VEmCLES - PM COUNT
TOTAL NUMBER OF CARS RECORDED = 479
TOWNIHAMLETIVILLAGE/ETC... NUMBER OF CARS 0/0
BABYLON 9 1.88
BRONX 4 0.84
BROOKHAVEN 27 5.64
CONNECTICUT 15 3.13
. DUTCHESS 1 0.21
EAST HAMPTON POST OFFICE BOXES 11 2.30
EAST HAMPTON VILLAGE 8 1.67
EAST HAMPTON lEAST OF SURVEY LOCATION) 35 7.31
EAST HAMPTON (WEST OF SURVEY LOCATION) 6 1.25
HUNTINGTON 17 3.55
ISLIP 22 4.59
KINGS COUNTY 11 2.30
NASSAU 61 12.73
NEW JERSEY 44 9.19
NEW YORK CITY 52 10.86
OTHER NEW ENGLAND STATES 7 1.46
OUT-OF-COUNTRY 3 0.63
POINTS SOUTH AND WEST 5 1.04
OUEENS 32 6.68
RIVERHEAD 4 0.84
ROCKLAND 3 0.63
SMITHTOWN 8 1.67
SOUTIIAMPTON 24 5.01
. SOUTHOLD 1 0.21
STATEN ISLAND 3 0.63
UPSTATE NEW YORK 36 7.52
WESTCHESTER' 30 6.26
TOTAL 479 100.00
. u* NEW YORK REGISTRATION / OUT -OF-STATE OWNER AND
NEW YORK REGISTRATIONS (NON-MATCHING) EXCLUDED FROM TOTAL
.
02111/97 03:57 PM
PMCOUNTWK,
.
3.0 MOBILITY DEFICIENCIES AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
.
.
Numerous deficiencies in mobility, i.e. the ability of persons and goods to travel within the
Town, were noted during the course of this study. These deficiencies were identified by field
observations, by analysis of traffic volume data collected during the study, and through input
obtained at meetings with the Town's five Citizens Advisory Committees. In addition, input
from the Village of East Hampton was obtained at meetings of the Technical Advisory
Committee.
.
.
3.1
PEAK TOURIST SEASON
.
As noted in Section 2.0, the length of the traditional summer tourist season has been increasing
over the last several years. The most serious mobility deficiencies occur during this season,
when the tourist-related trips combine with commuter and other trips of year round residents on
the existing highway network.
.
.
An attempt was made to graphically compare average monthly traffic volume data. Data from
NYSDOT's "Continuous" count station on Route 27 near the Shinnecock Canal in Southampton
was obtained. Unfortunately, although data for most months is available in the 1991-1994 time
period, only older data was available for the remaining months. Shown on Exhibit 3-1 is the
adjusted, NYSDOT count data for each month. The following conclusions can be drawn:
.
.
3-1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT 3-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) BY MONTH
r:;
Q
S
~
t
~
~ 30000
<(
Q
~
~ 25000
~
<(
45000 I
40000 t-
35000
I
I
I
I
20000
,.?
4"
1.,1'/
A
;
.' ...r
.~~
15000
JANUARY
MARCH
MAY
JULY
MONTH
SEPTEMBER
NOVEMBER
'-NYSDOT CONTINUOUS COUNT STATION -NOTE:AVERAGE ADJUSTED DATA FOR 1991-1994 TIME
PERIOD (SEE SECI'ION 3.1 OF TEXt)
NYSDOT DATA ADJUSTED BY 1'" SUFFOLK COUNTY D.P.W. MONTHLY FACI'ORS FOR EAST END
TOWNS
.
Time Period Months % of Calendar Year ADDX. % of Yearly Traffic
. June I-Sept 1 3 25 36
June I-Oct 1 4 33 44
May I-Oct 1 5 42 53
.
Also shown on Exhibit 3-1 is estimated monthly traffic using 1986 Suffolk County Department
of Public Works monthly adjustment factors for the East End Towns. The volumes obtained
using the County factors are slightly higher in the off-season, but markedly lower than those in
.
July and August. This would seem to indicate a significant increase in traffic in those two
months in the 1986-1994 time period; however, more data is need to confirm this conclusion.
.
Data was collected between Aprilll and April 21, 1997 at three locations along Route 27, in
order to compare "off season" traffic to that in August 1996. The results, as shown on Table
.
3-1, indicate varying relationships between April and August data. Data collected in Wainscott
and Amagansett indicates that April volumes are between 67 percent and 54 percent of August
.
volumes, which is consistent with State and County percentages of 56 percent and 76 percent,
respectively, computed from the graph on Exhibit 3-1. Data collected in Montauk, however,
indicates a more dramatic difference between April and August, in that August volumes are three
.
times those in April.
Peak hour traffic volumes are used to determine level of service, which is an indication of
.
operating conditions on a highway. As shown on Table 3-1, peak hour volumes in April at the
two westerly Route 27 locations are closer to the August hourly totals than are the corresponding
.
daily totals. For example, April peak hour volumes in Wainscott are 84 percent of those for the
3-2
.
.
.
.
TABLE 3-1
TOWN OF'EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COMPARISON OF SUMMER AND -OFF SEASON- LEVEL OF SERVICE
ON ROUTE 27
.
.
% TRAFFIC
AUGUST 96 APRI L 97 APRlljAUGUST
AVERAGE PEAK AVERAGE PEAK
DAILY HOUR DAILY HOUR AVERAGE PEAK
LOCATION TRAFFIC VOLUME TRAFFIC VOLUME DAY HOUR
Wainscott (No.5) 29,007 2,134 19,315 1,793 67% 84%
Amagansett (No. 26) 21,772 1,733 11,746 1,124 54% 65%
Montauk (No.4) 9,075 1,309 3,001 383 33% 29%
.
.
NOTES:
1. All figures are two-way traffic (sum of both directions).
.
.
.
RGD:efr
04/30/97
.
.
.
August peak hour, compared with 67 percent on a daily basis. In effect, then, the April "off
season" peak hour traffic volumes are within about 15 percent of peak hour volumes in August.
.
3.2 NY ROUJ'E 27
The most dramatic evidence of mobility deficiencies during the peak tourist season occurs along
NY Route 27 (Montauk Highway). Route 27 is essentially a two lane road for most of its
length. Wesf of the Town, Route 27 continues as two lanes to a point just east of the
Shinnecock Canal where it becomes a four lane limited-access facility. It is the primary route
to the South Fork from points west. Within the Town of East Hampton, Route 27 passes
through several business districts on its way to Montauk Point, which is located at the eastern
tip of the South Fork. These districts include Wainscott, the Village of East Hampton,
Amagansett, and Montauk. Congestion occurs along Route 27 in these areas as through traffic
competes for available highway capacity with traffic destined for business areas. Particularly
in the Village of East Hampton, traffic is slowed when vehicles enter and exit on-street parking
spaces, sometimes blocking through traffic for a significant period of time. In addition to traffic
congestion from vehicles, a large amount of pedestrians desire to cross Route 27 in the main
business area near Newtown Lane. Significant pedestrian crossing activity occurs in Wainscott,
Amagansett, and Montauk as well.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Speed and delay studies were conducted along Route 27 during summer Saturdays. These
studies were conducted in the business districts of East Hampton, Amagansett and Montauk.
The results are shown on Exhibits 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4. Lowest average speeds were observed in
.
3-3
.
.
.
the East Hampton business area. In both directions, the lowest average speeds were observed
between Newtown and Egypt Lanes, east of the main business area of the Town. The average
speed in this segment was about 17 miles per hour.
.
Congestion on Route 27 over the years has led to use of local roads as bypass routes with
increasing frequency. Residents living on these roadways have expressed concern with the
magnitude of traffic increases, as well as the speeds of vehicles on these roadways. There has
been an expressed desire to limit traffic volumes on these roadways to current levels.
.
.
3.3
DOWNTOWN AREAS
.
In addition to the congestion experienced on NY Route 27, business districts, particularly East
Hampton, experience shortages of parking. These shortages are most apparent on overcast or
rainy summer days, when tourists' destinations often change from beach to shopping areas. The
Village experiences virtually full utilization of parking located along Route 27 and in the rear
of stores fronting Route 27. Parking is often available in remotely-located parking lots, which
require up to a five minute walk for motorists to reach their ultimate shopping destination.
.
.
3.4
OTHER MOBILITY DEFICIENCIFS
.
Key deficiencies in other modes of travel were made evident during the course of this study.
Prominent among these were the following:
.
3-4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EXHIBIT 3-2
50
40
,.-....
::r:
a..
~ 30
'-"
0
W
W
CL.
(/) 20
W
(;)
<(
Cl:::
W
> 10
<(
o
,
w
z
w <(
Z ....J W
:3 z
z <(
~ ....J
I- VJ " 0 1-1
0:::0 N l- e..
<(0 ~ >- 0
1-0 0::: W Cl Z
VJ~ VJ Z w w
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
DISTANCE (MILES)
Eastbound
EAST HAMPTON TIME DELAY
(N.Y. 27)
SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 1996
START: 11:13 A,M. END: 12:13 P.I
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
RRnn~~A\/~~ M~W VnDW 11710
KEY
_.__...-.' Westbound
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TOWN Of' EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EXHIBIT 3-3
50
40
...--..
:r:
a..
~ 30
'-"
.......~'"-_.-~ . .,~"^'--....,~._,. ,"'~, ~ -.-. ~ ,.'---_..~._.
Cl
I..U
W
a..
(f)
w
Cl
<(
a:::
w
>
<(
o
10
0 I~
<(
0 l.iJ
a::: -l
0
(I) :I:
-l 1>-
-l
l.iJ I~
3:
l.iJ
~Z CD
a:::<( Z
<(- 0 <(
~O z a:::
(I)~ l.iJ U
0 0.5 1.0 '1.5 2.0
20
10
DISTANCE (MilES)
Eastbound
AMAGANSETT TIME DELAY
(N.Y. 27)
SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 1996
START: 1 :40 P.M. END: 2:44 P.M
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
RROOKHAVFN NFW YORK 1171q
KEY
'--"-' Westbound
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EXHIBIT 3-4
50
40
.........
::I:
Q...
~ 30
'--"
Cl
w
W
Q...
(f) 20
W
0
<(
0::
W
> 10
<(
>-
a::
<
:l<: a::
:::> CD
< :J
~
Z>- :l<:
0< :::>
~ ~~ <
~
~O:I: OZ
~..JQ zO
(/') O:I: l.LJ~
0 0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
o
DISTANCE (MilES)
KEY
SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 1996
START: 1 :12 P.M. END: 1 :51 P.M
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
RROOKHAVFN NFW YORK 1171Q
Eastbou nd
MONTAUK TIME DELAY
(N.Y. 27)
Westbound
.
o
Limited public bus service. There is a perceived need among the public for more
frequent service, and extension of service later in the day and on weekends. Improved
coordination of service with rail service and employment hours is also a concern, as well
as extension of summer routes either to spring and fall months, or to full, year round
service.
.
.
.
o Improved Long Island Rail Road service. There is a perceived public need for
improvement in the scheduling of service to New York City, as well as for service among
the South Fork communities.
.
3.5
SPECIAL EVENTS
.
Special events which occur in the peak tourist season often exacerbate traffic conditions in the
Town. A review of 1995 Special Events Permits issued by the Town revealed that 12 such
events occurred that year. Some events occurred over two or more days. Permits were issued
between May 1 and October 8 for the following events:
o Fairs, Sales, Shows (e.g. Crafts, Antiques) 5
o Festivals, Celebrations, Picnics, Regattas 4
o Fireworks 3
Traffic control (vehicular and pedestrian) in the immediate vicinity of these events often becomes
challenging, as motorists trying to access the event search for a parking space, then attempt to
cross congested roadways (such as Route 21) to attend the event. Traffic leaving fireworks
events is particularly difficult to manage, because most persons attending the event wish to
depart immediately after it concludes.
.
.
.
.
3-5
.
.
3.6
PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS
.
Public input on perceived transportation problems and solutions was sought at meetings with the
five Citizens Advisory Committees within the Town:
.
0 Montauk
0 Wainscott
0 Springs
0 Village of Sag Harbor
0 Amagansett
.
.
A brief presentation, consisting of the purpose of the Transportation Plan Up-Date, observed
safety problems at locations with a significant number of traffic accidents, and trends in traffic
volumes, was made before each Committee. The presentation followed the outline in Appendix
A. Following the presentation, Committee input on problems and solutions was solicited.
.
.
Similar input regarding transportation needs and concerns in the Village of East Hampton was
obtained from Village representatives at the Technical Advisory Committee meetings. A
summary of transportation needs and concerns expressed by each group appears in Appendix A,
along with a summary of each meeting.
.
.
It quickly became apparent that a primary concern of Town residents is the need to preserve the
rural nature of East Hampton, and that future transportation improvements must fit within this
framework. As a result, it was consistently stated that certain improvements are unacceptable,
.
3-6
.
.
.
or highly undesirable. These include:
o New highway construction to alleviate traffic congestion on Route 27.
o Major roadway widenings, such as the addition of through travel lanes on existing
roadways. This would exclude minor widenings for safety improvements, such as
construction of left turn lanes at specific intersections.
o Traffic increases on existing local "bypass" routes.
.
.
o
Installation of new traffic signals
.
Based on these criteria, it is apparent that there is minimal potential for the existing highway
system to accommodate e)tisting traffic, let alone future traffic generated by natural growth and
new private developments. If the Town is to adequately cope with existing congestion on
roadways such as Route 27, greater reliance must be placed on other modes of transportation,
particularly buses and rail.
.
.
3.7
FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
.
Future growth and development within the Town will be subject to zoning regulations, which
in turn conform with the Town's Land Use Plan. The Town's Planning Department is currently
updating the Land Use Plan, which is another of the components of the Town's Comprehensive
Plan. The Land Use Plan was last updated in 1984. It can be expected that the revised Land
Use Plan would permit a more limited ultimate development of vacant land within the Town than
is currently possible.
.
.
3-7
.
.
.
In addition to the need for preservation of open space for environmental reasons, and the desire
to limit population densities to those consistent with rural areas, the public has expressed concern
over congestion on the Town's roadway system in the peak tourist season. Exhibit 8-11 in
Section 8.3 shows existing summer "Levels of Service" on major roadways in the Town. Level
of Service is a measure of traffic congestion on a roadway or at an intersection, with" A" being
the best level, "E" being equal to the roadway's capacity and "F" being failure, or conditions
exceeding capacity. Conditions yielding Level of Service "C" are typically used in designing
a rural roadway. It can be seen from Exhibit 8-11 that most roadways currently operate at Level
of Service "C" or worse in the peak season. The analysis did not examine intersections on these
roadways, which typically operate at worse levels of service than roadway segments, as
conflicting through and cross-street traffic compete for the same roadway "space".
Consequently, there is little room to accommodate future developments on the Town's existing
roadway system, particularly when considering that the public desires that through lanes not be
added to existing roads, traffic on bypass routes not be increased, and new traffic signals not be
installed. It is recognized that a "zero growth" condition is neither practical nor desirable;
however, there is an expressed desire to limit larger developments within the Town, if they will
generate a significant amount of traffic, and thereby "use up" a good portion of the remaining
capacity of the roadway system.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 3-2 is an illustration of potential traffic conditions at three locations on Route 27 for future
years. In order to estimate future traffic volumes, a conservative growth factor of 5 percent
.
3-8
.
.
growth per year was utilized. It can be seen that, even with 5 percent growth, two locations will
reach Level of Service F by the Year 2004.
.
3.8
.
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
During the course of the development of this report, many ideas were presented as means of
alleviating traffic congestion in the Town during the peak tourist season. Many of these were
aimed at reducing the reliance on the automobile as the principal means of travel within the
Town. Some of these potential solutions to improve mobility within the Town during the peak
tourist season are as follows:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
Improved Bus Service: There is a perceived need for institution of frequent bus service,
particularly within the Village of East Hampton. This bus service could include a
"shuttle" type service linking existing Suffolk County Transit routes with popular tourist
destinations such as business districts and beaches. The bus service could also interface
with rail service at existing Long Island Rail Road Stations.
o
Improved Rail Service: There is a need to up-grade existing Long Island Rail Road
service to New York City during peak times of travel, i.e. eastbound on Friday
afternoons and Saturday mornings, and westbound on Sundays. The railroad is also seen
as having potential for moving tourist related traffic during the peak season, both within
the Town and along the entire South Fork. The concept of providing more frequent
service, i.e. a "shuttle" type operation during the summer on the South Fork, is one that
may help reduce reliance on automobiles. This "shuttle" type of service could employ
3-9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 3-2
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH
POTENTIAL mAFFIC GROWTH ALONG
NYS ROUTE 27, MONTAUK HIGHWAY
COUNT STATION NO.5 COUNT STATION NO. 26 COUNT STATION NO. 38
APPX. PERCENTAGE PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR
. YEAR GROWTH * VOLUME L.O.S. VOLUME L.O.S. VOLUME L.O.S.
1996 EXISTING 2,134 E- 1,733 E 1,309 D
2002 30% 2,774 F 2,252 E- 1,702 E
2004 40% 2,988 F 2,426 F 1,834 E
2006 50% 3,201 F 2,600 F 1,936 E
2008 60% 3,414 F 2,773 F 2,095 E-
2010 70% 3,628 F 2,946 F 2,225 E-
* USING 5% GROWTH RATE PER YEAR.
RGD:efr
04/30/97
.
the "light rail" type of vehicles, which could also accommodate bicycles.
.
.
o Highway Improvements: While not precluded, the feeling of various communities within
the Town is that existing highway facilities must not be widened, Le. additional lanes
should not be constructed. The addition of turning lanes at intersections to increase
capacity and safety at spot locations, would not be considered as additional lanes in this
context. Construction of turning lanes where appropriate should be implemented.
.
.
o Other Safety related improvements, such as clearing to improve sight distance and minor
alignment improvements, are desirable, but are not expected to increase capacity.
.
3.9 EXPERIENCE IN OTHER WCALES
During the course of the study, the Technical Advisory Committee solicited input from two
communities which experience many similarities to conditions occurring in East Hampton.
These include traffic congestion in peak tourist season, geographic constraints to improvement
of transportation systems, and environmental and community sensitivity. Two such similar
communities are Cape Cod and the Florida Keys. Both of the regions were contacted in order
to determine if recent studies had been concluded and means of improving mobility had been
identified.
.
.
.
.
The Cape Cod Commission is in the process of developing a long range transportation plan for
the Cape Cod region. While Cape Cod experiences traffic congestion not unlike that of East
3-10
.
.
.
Hampton, Cape Cod is also sensitive to the preservation of its natural environment.
Development of alternate modes of transportation which would reduce dependence on
automobiles is one of the three regional goals for Cape Cod's long range transportation plan.
.
Key projects and programs anticipated to be developed as part of the long range plan include the
following:
o
Improved intermodal connections and a multi-modal transportation center.
Additional seasonal and year-round bus service.
Additional park and ride lots.
.
o
o
.
.
o Enhanced air service.
o Improved passenger rail service.
o Comprehensive bicycle path network and related amenities.
o Improved use of water for transportation.
o Travel demand management/systems management strategies.
o Improved pedestrian amenities.
o Key intersection and roadway improvement projects.
Most of the above noted measures have application in the Town of East Hampton.
.
.
.
Contact was made with the Florida Department of Transportation regarding conditions in the
Florida Keys. Although Key West experiences circulation problems similar to those in the Town
of East Hampton, there is a very significant reliance on bicycles to travel on the Island, both by
visitors and commuters. Because of a heavy reliance on bicycle travel in an area which also
.
3-11
.
.
.
experiences heavy automobile traffic, there is a significant traffic accident problem for bicyclists,
with the result that this location has one of the highest bicyclist accident rate in the Country.
Over 20 percent of workers in the City of Key West travel to work by either bicycle or foot.
The City is currently exploring means of reducing the number of travel lanes available on the
Island in order to establish formal bicycle lanes along these roadways. Although the surge in
population in Key West is similar to that in East Hampton (year round population of 30,000
approaches 90,000 in peak season), the Island is only 1-1/2 miles by 3 miles in size. The
resulting population density is greater than that in East Hampton, and as a result the City of Key
West would not be an appropriate "role model" for transportation improvements in East
Hampton.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3-12
.
.
4.0 RAIL TRANSPORTATION
.
4.1
EXISTING SERVICE AND RIDERSHIP
.
There are three railroad stations serving the Town of East Hampton on the Long Island Rail
Road's Montauk Branch. These are located in East Hampton (Village of East Hampton),
Amagansett, and Montauk. Service on the Long Island Rail Road is summarized in Table 4-1.
As can be seen from the Table, summer service is much more extensive than regular service
during the remainder of the year. Summer service is punctuated by additional trains, added
primarily on Friday afternoons and evenings in the eastbound direction, and on Sundays and
holidays in the westbound direction. Exclusive of this additional service, however, intervals
between trains running to Montauk are long, typically ranging from 2 to 10 hours depending on
time of day. Westbound morning service, with the exception of Mondays, is limited to
departures at 5:38 and 11:25 AM.
.
.
.
.
.
Shown on Exhibit 4-1 are the locations of the stations, and passenger counts in the eastbound
and westbound directions <?n a summer weekend. Also indicated on the Exhibit are passenger
counts for peak trains during these periods. As can be seen from the Exhibit, passenger volume
at the East Hampton station is the highest of the three locations. Peak passenger volumes at
Amagansett and Montauk are similar, with the exception of the eastbound peak train volume at
Amagansett. East Hampton has by far the highest number of available parking spaces.
.
.
4-1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 4-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD SERVICE TO MONTAUK
SUMMER
REGULARLY
SCHEDULED ADDITIONAL
Weekdays
WB
EB
5
5
1 - Daily to and from East Hampton; 1 - Monday AM
1 - Daily to and from East Hampton; 4 - Friday PM; 1 - Thursday PM
Weekends
WB
EB
4
5
3 - Sundays/Holidays, PM
REMAINDER OF YEAR
REGULARLY
SCHEDULED ADDITIONAL
Weekdays
WB
EB
4
5
1 - Daily to and from East Hampton
1 - Daily to and from East Hampton; 1 - Friday PM
Weekends
WB
EB
4
5
...
[~
r
"
L
.
r
...
r
~
f",
L.
r'
t
J"'
- ~.
Ii...
r"
!.
[
1M!:
4L
'c
C
.-.
..
c
t
r
...
1:
r
~
.
L
,.
'"
,~
( <<
.H
e
GRAPHIC SCALE
-
i
,"'"
I
"'"
I
4000 C 2000 4000
~
DRAFT
( IN FEET )
inch = 5280ft
aN~_ Nt'lTT
!3ASE:1oW>/>SCOf,lPllLOrROI,IAN(RICANOICITAlCARTOGlW'tff.ltlC.
OlJ.o.ow.NGUS FltES OF t.lAY 2B. 1~96. TI-i[ TOWN OF EAST I!.AAoIPTON
PlN'NNC DtPARTloItNThlAPS REVlSEOSEPTEwElER 1992 BY R.R,P. AAD
SUFFOI,J(COUNTYRU.l.PROP(RTYTA.ll\AAf'-KEVIlIAPOFJlJNE L 1975.
.,
/'
..
.'
/../ .,<,-
Il~
.~.JJjifE;;---'/
~
.;....~"::::-
~
, ~ q
~i~
~:;.:
<!~
~Ilf:.
...~
.....Jf~~
MON'fAt:K
/-
/
=:::-';'~
"~';;b
::<;.
;-,:.{~<;
,..::~_-_~; Si-/
.rlREPI..l.('E
",'
/4,
=.
i'
I:
,
, -'
.
\~~~~
" .~
~ -,
:\. :::~>,
~0Q0,i~-
'\
DE\'(J~ ,~
"
o:;-'/.!....
_-..:0-'....0-
.~t::::_,.
i
l
1-.
_L___
8[.\CH HAMf'TO;:---
,.."
...:'"
:~ ~
..,:"
:'-'~';/,'
~~ ~_~ :-i
';""
~. -".
',-,".-
MONTAUK
STATION --
,~<)-....., -~;.
~MONTAUK
( AIRPORT
-f;';';';;.-.
,)(
E.B. 47(;' 119
!W.B.,851 120
I T.A.P_;
~
"
/
/
I1EAI~H
DITCH
PLAl:"S
.-----=-
-.
~-------
PROSPECT
HILL
MONTAm'- .
POl!>."
,-"
",
....
-,'
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
,
AIRPORTS & RAILROAD STATIONS
Exhibit No.
L. K. McLEAN
February 1997
ASSOCIATES, P .C.
L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16
4-1
KEY
DESCRIPTION
AIRPORT
RAILROAD STAT;O'\
PASSENGER COl'I\TS
~FRlDAY (4- PM) TO
SATURDAY (1 PM)
___SATURDAY (3:30 Pltf,)
TO MONDAY (12 PM)
SYMBOL
'(
..
: T01"l , ~.....
, AMAGANSETT
STATION
E.B, - I -
W,B., -
. TOTAl lll,.,~
LB.' 192 50
w.e. 408 1127
I T;sPI
IT~P'1
TOTAL AVAILABLE
PARKING
.Ie /-=.--:---\ "'-.
'. ~~ - :;:,:.-
f/~
~._--_./...'
~-
.'
".:5.---~-----'''''''-_
N.o\PF...\GFE -,:t .0'"
-....
P~OMt:::ED LAXD
.:.;-
~...-
,
;;';~AV:c. :".'.""~::::
="..-'"
~
-~
"
i
-..--
~-,~' ,
~]'A:..<rr ~~T.9~EACH
,..~:p.;;:: ':;':?;:.~,
....'tI~.."
.
.
Fares on the LIRR range from $10.25 one-way in the off peak period to $15.25 during peak
period, for travel from any of the three stations to Zone No. 1 which includes Brooklyn and
Penn Station in New York. When special parlor cars are available, typically in the eastbound
direction on Friday afternoons and westbound on Monday mornings, the LIRR charges an
additional $17.50 fare for this service. Scheduled travel times from Penn Station to Montauk
are typically in the 3 to 3-1/2 hour range. The "cannon-ball" train which runs on summer
Thursdays and Fridays, makes this trip in a scheduled 2 hours and 37 minutes.
.
.
.
The LIRR will accommodate bicycles only on certain trains. The published schedule indicates
on which trains bicycles can be accommodated. The Rail Road requires a Cyc-n-Ride Permit
in order to bring bicycles on the trains.
.
4.2
CAPITAL PROJECTS
.
The LIRR is currently preparing to reconstruct platforms at the three railroad stations. This
reconstruction will meet the latest Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and will
accommodate new bi-level coaches. Bicycle racks will be installed in conjunction with this
work. Limited dual mode service will be instituted as well. The dual mode locomotives will
be able to run on both the non-electrified tracks within the Town, and on electrified segments
of the LIRR, which exist west of Babylon on the Montauk Branch, and west of Farmingdale on
the Main Line, upon which some Montauk Branch trains travel. This would eliminate the need
for passengers to change trains at Jamaica. Implementation of new diesel fleet service on the
Montauk Branch is scheduled for 1998.
.
.
.
4-2
.
.
4.3
NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
.
At the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings, public input consistently focused on the following
concerns regarding rail service in the Town:
o Improvement is needed in the condition, frequency and scheduling of current LIRR
service to New York City. Although the LIRR is instituting dual mode service in 1998,
it appears that only one such train will be initially assigned to the Montauk Branch.
Current plans, though, are to modernize the remaining aging railroad fleet. Judging by
current passenger loads for weekend summer service, particularly on the "cannon ball"
Friday afternoon train, there appears to be a need to expand the service. Similarly, the
current frequency of weekday train service (5-6 trains per day) does not encourage use
of the LIRR for travel from East Hampton to New York City, often resulting in low
utilization of the existing service capacity. In fact, private bus service operators
offering service to New York City have, to a certain extent, been successful in
attracting riders due to frequent departures and excellent riding conditions.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It is understood that the feasibility of providing additional weekday service to New York
City can be limited by track capacity in the East River Tunnel, the existence of an
unsignalized (for two directional travel) single track east of Sayville, and the availability
of locomotives and cars.
.
o Improvement is needed in intra-South Fork service. This improvement is particularly
desirable because the location of existing stations near tourist areas is conducive to
.
4-3
.
.
attracting automobile trips to rail. Similar to the identified limits on providing long-
distance service to New York City, constraints on improving service within the South
Fork include the existing unsignalized single track, availability of rolling stock and
supporting infrastructure (e.g. parking facilities).
.
.
Access to the railroad for bicyclists should be more favorable. The LIRR is currently
revising its existing Bicycle Policy, and will soon be soliciting input from Planning
Departments and user groups.
o
.
.
4.4
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended:
o Conduct a major study of the role of the LIRR in providing rail service in East Hampton
Town, and within the South Fork as well. This study should address the following
issues:
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
Means of improving service to New York City - The study should thoroughly
analyze previously identified constraints to improving this service. For example,
lack of East River track capacity may not be a limitation, as most Montauk Branch
trains now terminate at Babylon, where frequent service to Penn Station and
Brooklyn emanates. The LIRR is also pursing direct, additional access to Grand
Central Station within the next 15 years. The constraint of an unsignalized single
track can be addressed through construction of sidings and implementation of
signalization, as has been done on the busy Main Line between Farmingdale and
4-4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ronkonkoma. More than one "dual mode" train should be assigned to the
Montauk Branch.
o
Improvement in Intra-South Fork Service - The study should address the feasibility
of providing "shuttle-type" service between South Fork stations, particularly in
the summer tourist season. Since the LIRR parallels Route 27, with existing
stations in areas of shopping and tourist interest, the potential exists to remove
automobile trips from the roadway. Frequent Intra-South Fork service could be
interspersed with City service, or could replace it by means of a transfer point,
possibly in Southampton. In this way, "light-rail" type of vehicles, perhaps with
local character, could be utilized. Single track limitations could be addressed as
noted for New York City service.
o
Improve intermodal coordination. Any future planning LIRR stations must
address existing and potential service from other modes of travel, as described in
the railroad's station Design Guideline including:
o Bus (public and private), including "shuttle" service linking rail stations
.
and business districts.
0 Taxi
. 0 Automobile (parking and drop-off)
0 Bicycle
0 Pedestrian
.
.
4-5
.
.
Layout of access to the station utilizing each of these modes is critical, and will
encourage transfers of trips to the rail system. Establishment of amenities for
riders, such as waiting areas, restrooms, and newspaper and snack facilities should
be apriority. The revised LIRR Bicycle Policy should incorporate means to
facilitate transportation of bicycles on rail cars.
.
.
Some of the above issues can be handled on a short-term basis independent of completion of a
comprehensive study. These would include scheduling improvements, possibly beginning in
1998 as bi-Ievel coaches are placed in operation. The LIRR has expressed a willingness to work
with the Town and the Village of East Hampton regarding scheduling; this opportunity should
be pursued.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4-6
.
.
5.0 BUS TRANSPORTATION
.
.
Bus transportation in East Hampton Town is provided primarily by Suffolk County Transit,
which was established in 1980, and private operators. The private bus service runs primarily
from Montauk to New York City. The Suffolk County Transit bus routes are run and
maintained by private contractors. These routes are illustrated in Exhibit 5-1.
.
5.1 RIDERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS
.
.
Based on surveys conducted in 1988, 1992 and 1996 by Suffolk County Transit, on a County-
wide basis approximately 80 percent of bus passengers do not own cars. Most of the riders are
in a lower economic status and their primary purpose in riding the bus is to take it to work.
Some riders use the buses to get to and from school, and some use the buses to get to shopping
areas .
.
5.2 FUNDING
.
.
The current bus fare is $1.50 one-way. Senior citizen's fares are $0.50, and transfers are $0.25
additional. The last fare increase was in 1991. The County typically recovers only 25 percent
of the cost of operating routes through the collection of bus fares. The remainder of operating
costs comes from County funds, State operating assistance funds, and Federal operating
assistance funds. Federal assistance only amounts for about 5 percent of the cost.
.
5-1
.
..
L
GRAPHIC SCALE
~,
i
~-
""'"
I
16000
I
DRAFT
r
,
L
.
r
( IN FEET )
incb = 5280ft.
('...".~~" Ntl.,.,.
l. BASE lAAP J,S COI.II'>lt!O FROIoI ..wERICAN OlGlTA.L CARTOGRlPH~, INC.
O~GltSfII.fSO,~Y28.1996.l1-iE:TOWNOFEASTIWoFTON
PUH>lNGO[PA.l1l'"WE~w.PSREVlSEOSEPTElolB(R1992BYR.U',.o.NO
SlJF"FOU<COU~REALP'ROPERTYTAAII&AP-KEY,1.W'0f"-'JNE1.1975
.....
,.
,
.-
r-,
.,
/..,
:'
/
.'
//
,:..-
....
.........
......;i;~;;f:~:::..............
.....: '1
L
'-
, --=--:.::::~
r
.
.&
:;;:'i~:::
. .:..,.;~.....
~"',..,.. . :." :::.
<M
>_~'/Y.
"):r"
t
tJ
r
L
f"
,.
[
e:..'
__~3_~'2;:!:...-
" -':~::<-::..\.
./~
..,....
,-llj>"
/.,,,,'
.0-".\
':~:{':::;:.~
,,,,..' ""- .....;.- ~
./
FIREPLACE
",,'
-......:--,,::
".
ro
.
U
.,.,-,~ ::-~-
[
.'
l.
r
L
t
I
r
I.
t
\'';
\.:
,
-"
.
-'.'
<
-;':~-"--~- ---~
~~\~~
:;.-;'2;....
~q.\~9-,
~ ,~.;-,
"'lii:.......~.
'\
ono:,,< \
'\
".....,.".,.<::
-
--:'--"'~~ ~;'-"~
r
L
.
~
vi
=>
-"to
I'
U
.'"
I
l
.
__I.
:-'
_,-_~:..~~ ,__uu_
.;;: "~;::
~J~
-.- -----....--
~:J\~
{~~-.,
.,
BL\CB Ho\.\U'TON~
"''-'..:':'"''
PROSPECT
HW,
MONTAUK
POINT
........
...
,~
. .
. .
'----- --..-
...0--"" ]_:.,~"
, II
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
BUS ROUTFS
L. K. McLEAN
February 1997
Exhibit No.
ASSOCIATES, P.C.
L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16
5-1
KEY
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
PRIVATE BrS
r:::::::::::::l
: .' .' .'
.' .' .'
:::::::::::::::::
Pl:BUC Bl:S
(Sl:FFOLK rOl:KTY TRA:"SIT)
AREA WITHfN 5 MIK. WALK
TO PVBUC BUS
-.'--.f"_",'" ;::,...
~~: "
."',~' "
/ ,-
-._--' :
i."----'
';<.
.-----
7';;''''>-~--
NAi'F.",ul:E .~-:c "Y"O
.:: '.},RQ!4~E".
(0-
/'
j,O."'r.:' ' ;..: ,?s;::
,~
: ..:..o:..__:,:~;.~:: ::~'. :. .
:.:: ". . " . '. . . .. .... ~ .:...~,,;.~;.;:,~:.
--,_:-~~:;:~;~~~-'~:~y,,:,:~:~:~;,~~::: .' . .:.:~.
..>:.E!iE:
':~;.~~
. '. . ~
(J;-:-...f-:>--:-:-~ .~':~~;
.
5.3 BUS ROUTES AND RIDERSHIP
.
.
Table 5-1 summarizes the bus routes and frequencies within the Town. One of the four Suffolk
County bus routes operates only in the summer season. Table 5-2 summarizes the ridership on
these four routes during 1995. As can be seen from the Table, the S-92 route, which runs from
Greenport to East Hampton via Riverhead, has the highest ridership. There is no breakdown,
however, for the ridership which exists on portions of the route outside the Town of East
Hampton. The lO-B route which runs from East Hampton Village to Three Mile Harbor and
Springs, appears to have the highest ridership of the other three routes.
.
.
.
The Hampton Jitney and Hamptons On My-Mind bus service accommodate longer trips,
providing service from Montauk to Manhattan.
.
The Hampton Jitney's regularly-scheduled service to Manhattan via Southampton carries
significant ridership in the summer tourist season. About 60 percent of the Jitney's yearly
passenger volume occurs in the May l5-September 15 period. Up to 2,000 passengers per day
can be carried on a summer weekend, with approximately 40 percent of these riders travelling
to or from the Town of East Hampton. Ridership has been increasing yearly.
.
.
The Town of East Hampton provides a valuable service for Senior Citizens and handicapped and
disabled persons. For a $0.25 one-way fare, transportation is available to the riders.
.
5-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 5-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
BUS ROUTES AND FREQUENCIES
S.C. BUS ROUTE # GENERAL ROUTE FREOUENCYIREMARKS
lOB East Hampton Village to Three Mile Harbor and Springs EveI)' 2 hrs (6:50am-6:20pm)
(via CR 40 and CR 41) and onto Bridgehampton RR Station Eastbound and Westbound
IOC East Hampton Village to Montauk Village Every 3 hrs (6:50am-7:50pm)
(via NYS 27, CR 49, and CR 77) Eastbound and Westbound
.
S-92 Greenport to East Hampton via Riverhead Eastbound: every 1-2 hrs (9:15am- 6:25pm)
(NYS 114 from Sag Harbor to East Hampton) Westbound: every 1-2 hrs (7:40am-5:40pm)
Montauk to Southampton Every 2-3 hrs Monday-Saturdayonly (Summer only)
S-94 (via NYS 27) (8:20am-6:25pm)
Eastbound and Westbound
PRIv.ATE BUS LINES GENERAL ROUTE FREOUENCYIREMARKS
Hampton Jitney Montauk to Manhattan Eastbound and Westbound every hour (5:00am-7:45pm)
(via NYS 27 in Southampton and East Hampton Towns)
Eastbound: 4 Buses daily increasing to 8 (Thurs-Sat)
Montauk to Manhattan departures every 1-3 hrs (8:00am-7:15pm)
Hamptons on my Mind (via NYS 27 in Southampton and East Hampton Towns)
Westbound: 5 Buses daily; 4 additional on Sunday
departures every I-In-3 hrs (6:00am-3:00pm)
nRtn4/7 n :45 AM
BUSSCHEO.wK4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 5-2
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
RIDERSHIP ON SUFFOLK TRANSIT ROUTES (1995)
ROUTE NO.: S92 lOB 10C
AREAS SERVED: Greenport to East Hampton Bridgehampton to Springs East Hampton Village -
Villaae via Riverhead via East Hampton Villaae Montauk
MONTHS
January 13,182 1,357
February 11,915 1,274
March 15,053 1,594
April 15,185 1,621
May 16,285 1,629
June 17,699 1,761 42C
July 17,814 1,851 99;
August 20,705 2,150 1,40!
September 16,802 1,706 13<
October 16,310 1,481
November 14,743 1,342
December 13,347 1,224
TOTAL: 189 040 18990 295.
. NOTES:
1. For Route S94 (Summer Only) - Southampton to Montauk via Route 27, total July and August ridership
was 2,247. Total for entire summer is unavailable.
. 2. lOC route was Summer Only in 1995.
3. Source: Suffolk County Transit.
.
.
.
5.4
BUS SERVICE
.
.
Suffolk County Transit bus service is available on weekdays and Saturdays, with the exception
of most holidays. Service generally operates from early morning to evening. On the lOB and
S-92 routes, service frequencies are in the one to two hour range. On the summer-only route
(S-94), service headways are in the two to three hour range. The County has recently extended
service on the lO-C Route to the entire year.
.
.
Hampton Jitney provides service from Montauk to Manhattan, with a frequency of approximately
one hour, during the summer season. There are additional eastbound buses on Fridays, and
westbound buses on Sundays and Mondays. In the off season, service is at hourly intervals
during peak periods of the day. Service intervals increase to about two hours during off-peak
times.
.
.
The Jitney will stop at Exit 60 of the Long Island Expressway by advance reservation. A taxi
will meet the bus to provide service to the LIRR's Ronkonkoma Station or to Long Island
MacArthur Airport, both of which are nearby.
.
.
Hamptons On My Mind provides bus service from Montauk to Manhattan, running four to five
buses daily on a typical weekday in the summer. An additional four buses are added .on peak
days (e.g. eastbound between Thursday and Saturday and westbound on. Sunday). In the off-
season, service is curtailed to Fridays and Sundays only, essentially serving just weekend
travelers.
.
5-3
.
.
5.5
NEEDS
.
.
Suffolk Transit has attempted to meet at least some of the mobility needs of East Hampton
residents by providing limited fixed route bus service as described in the preceding section. In
fact, with the recent introduction of year-round service on Route lOC, residents of Montauk now
have the availability of public transit service to East Hampton and points further west on a
permanent, 12 months a year basis. Nonetheless, it is obvious from the input obtained from the
various Citizens Advisory Committees, elected officials, and Planning Department staff that
there remains a need for better public transportation throughout the Town. These needs, while
prevalent during the peak summer tourist season, are manifested on a year-round basis.
.
.
.
The primary users of the existing Suffolk Transit buses are captive riders, those who have no
alternative means of transportation. The preliminary ridership statistics for the Route 10C
service are an indication that there is a latent demand for bus service which is not being met,
and there are still significant portions of the Town which are not being served at all by the
existing bus system. Therefore, one of the basic needs which should be addressed is that of
providing reasonable public transit options for all Town residents who do not have the
availability of an automobile to meet their routine daily mobility requirements.
.
.
.
There is also an apparent need for improved bus service to help alleviate the severe traffic
congestion problems which exist throughout the Town during the peak summer months. As
indicated in Section 8 of this report, the growth rate of vehicular traffic on Town roads over the
past 30 years has far outpaced the average growth rate for most of Suffolk County and the Long
.
5-4
.
.
.
Island region in general. In fact, traffic volumes have now reached a level which the existing
highway network cannot accommodate. Inasmuch as there is a strong community preference to
maintain the rural character of the Town and general opposition to any major roadway widening
and/or new highway construction, the only viable solution to the congestion problem is the
development of a well-integrated public transportation system which provides an acceptable
alternative to the automobile for local trips.
.
.
.
Town and Village officials have also identified a significant problem involving parking
deficiencies at most public beaches and in the various downtown business districts, particularly
within the Village of East Hampton. This restricts the ability of residents and tourists to avail
themselves of these beach facilities and results in a negative impact on the local economy.
Unfortunately, there is limited opportunity to provide additional parking in close proximity to
those locations where it is most needed. There is a need, therefore, to provide an alternate
means of transportation to provide reasonable access to these activity centers.
.
.
5.6
RECOMMENDATIONS
.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Town of East Hampton must seek to develop an integrated
bus system which is oriented towards the following objectives:
o Improved mobility for all Town residents and tourists
o Reduced congestion during the summer tourist season
o Reduced demand for parking in downtown areas and at public beaches
.
.
5-5
.
Due to the relatively low population density and wide geographic expanse of the Town, it is
unrealistic to expect that these objectives can be satisfactorily achieved by expansion of the
County's fixed route bus service. Rather, the Town must seek to develop a multi-faceted transit
system which can provide reliable, comfortable and convenient service at a reasonable cost. In
order to address the needs outlined in the previous section, the transit system should incorporate
the following elements:
o Demand responsive (dial-a-ride) service designed to serve potential transit users
whose origin and/or destination points are not within a reasonable walking distance of
the County's fixed routes. Initially, the focus of this type of service should be directed
toward expansion of the Town's existing senior citizen transportation program. In the
long term, the service may be made available to the general population of the Town, if
it is determined to be economically feasible.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
Shuttle bus service to public beach facilities and downtown shopping districts from
satellite parking sites. These parking sites would have to be located within a reasonable
distance of the final destination points to minimize trip lengths and facilitate frequent
service. This can be accomplished by utilizing available parking facilities belonging to
the Town or other public/quasi-public agencies such as schools, fire houses, libraries, etc.
o
Feeder/distributor buses to transport passengers to and from the railroad stations.
This type of service would be particularly beneficial on weekends during the summer
tourist season.
5-6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
Shuttle buses to transport guests from motels/hotels to restaurants, shopping areas,
tourist attractions, and transfer points where they can link up with other modes of
transportation (Le. Suffolk Transit routes, LIRR).
Toward this end, it is recommended that the Town undertake a more detailed
marketing/feasbility study to assist in the formulation of a townwide Transit
Development Program (fOP) which will:
o
Identify potential transit users and the types of service that will be most effective in
meeting their specific needs.
o
Determine the type, size and number of vehicles that will be needed for each type of
recommended service.
o
Estimate the annual operating costs associated with each service element and evaluate
operating alternatives (i.e. Town operated vs. privately operated bus service).
o
Identify potential revenue and funding sources, including the formation of
Transportation Improvement District (TID's) whereby businesses which directly
benefit from the transit services help to subsidize them through the property tax
base.
5-7
.
o
Develop recommendations for integrating all new transit services with the existing
fixed route bus service and LIRR train service to establish a townwide public
transportation network which will provide people with a viable alternative to automobile
travel.
.
.
.
In the short term, it is recommended that the Town not wait for completion of a TOP in order
to address some of the immediate traffic congestion and parking problems. As an iterim
measure, it is suggested that the Town undertake a demonstration project involving shuttle
service to either (or both) of the Town beaches in Amagansett and the Village of East Hampton
Business District, utilizing the Town Hall parking lot as a centralized pick-up point. By using
a private operator, the high start-up costs usually associated with new bus service can be avoided
and the operation could be started by the summer season. The Town could then monitor usage
and survey passengers to obtain input as to the viability of permanent service, not only in this
area, but in other parts of the Town as well. Another potential summer shuttle route is
reinstitution of the Montauk-to-Montauk Point service previously provided by Suffolk County
Transit.
.
.
.
.
.
Also in the short term, the Town should work with Suffolk County transit to optimize use of the
existing bus system. This should include coordination with other modes of travel such as rail,
schedule and route revisions, and the means to publicize system routes and schedules.
.
5-8
.
.
6.0
FERRIES
.
.
There is currently limited existing ferry service to the Town. Cross-Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
has proposed establishment of a new ferry service to the Montauk area from New London,
Connecticut. This would supplement Cross-Sound's existing Orient-New London route
emanating from the North Fork of Long Island. Cross-Sound currently operates both passenger-
only, and vehicular and passenger service. The passenger-only service is accommodated by
means of six round trips, utilizing high speed vessels with a capacity of 350 people. This
service serves as a link in transporting patrons to existing casinos in Connecticut. In addition,
a passenger-only service has been proposed from the Village of Sag Harbor, part of which lies
in the Town, to New York City.
.
.
.
The Town, cognizant of a threat of significant increases in traffic and parking, as experienced
in the Town of Southo1d as a result of implementation of high-speed, casino-related service, in
1995 adopted a moratorium on institution of new ferry service pending completion of this
revision to the Transportation Element of its Comprehensive Plan. This section identifies
specific and potential transportation-related impacts of various "scenarios", or various intensities,
of a proposed ferry service to New England. Other potential, social, economic and
environmental effects of a new ferry route are identified but their quantification is beyond the
scope of this report.
.
.
.
6.1
EXISTING SERVICE
.
The Viking Ferry Lines operates a passenger-only ferry service to two destinations from
6-1
.
.
.
Montauk during the summer season. A daily ferry to Block Island, Rhode Island, leaves
Montauk in the morning, and returns from Block Island in the late afternoon. One-way travel
time is one hour and 45 minutes. Service to New London, Connecticut is typically provided
only on Fridays and Sundays. Two trips per day leave Montauk, in the early morning and
evening. The scheduled duration for the trip to New London is I hour and 45 minutes.
.
.
A significant number of passengers utilize the ferry service to Montauk on Friday nights, and
to New London on Sunday evenings. It appears that a good portion of these passengers remain
in the Montauk area for the weekend.
.
.
A "cruise" type of service emanates from the Village of Sag Harbor once a day. The vessel
stops at the Village of Greenport before proceeding up the Connecticut River.
6.2 POTENTIAL SERVICE
.
Potential ferry service to the Town may involve one or more of the following elements:
o Passenger and vehicular service from New York City to the Town
o Passenger and vehicular service from New England to the Town.
.
.
New York City Service
In the Fall of 1996, a private company proposed the establishment of passengers-only weekend
service from New York City to Sag Harbor. Two vessels, reportedly capable of making the
trips in 2-3/4 hours, could accommodate up to 350 passengers. The company, New York Fast
.
6-2
.
.
.
Ferry, suggested that capacity could be limited to 200 passengers, and that a significant number
of riders could walk to their destinations in the Village. Public reaction to the passenger ferry
proposal has been mixed; Village residents are generally opposed to a ferry service which would
transport ve):ric1es. To date, an impact study for the ferry service has not been filed with the
Village.
.
.
Service to New En~land
The concept of new ferry service to New England from Montauk has been proposed by Cross
Sound Ferry, which currently operates existing service to New London from Orient Point. The
Pequot Indian tribe, which operates the Foxwood Casino in Connecticut, has announced the
formation of a shipbuilding subsidiary, based in New London, to build ferry vessels. Initially,
the boats would bring casino patrons across the Long Island Sound. The vessels reportedly
could hold up to 330 passengers at speeds up to 47 knots. A 35-knot average speed journey
from Montauk to New London would take about 35 minutes. The Sea Jet, a high speed
passenger ferry operated between Orient Point and New London in addition to numerous
vehicular ferries on that route, cruises at about 30 knots.
.
.
.
.
It should also be noted that potential improvements to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor could foster
new travel to Montauk via a rail-to-ferry connection at New London.
.
6.3 POTENTIAL SERVICE TO MONTAUK
6.3.1 Potential Sites and Roadway Access
.
6-3
.
..
(
~
r'
L
.
("
L.
r'
..
f;
,
...
r
t
r
i..
r
..
C
~
t
[
i~
l..
[
4.
L.
r
..'
t
,..
l.
.
C
~
~
!~ "
~
4- ,
~
GRAPHIC SCALE
4000 a 2000 4000
~
( IN FEET )
1 inch .=: 52BOft,
I" ~ .
'1\;;:
..,~,
"".~ '
:\jAP::AUGE
STAE ~AR~-
8
!
.' --.,.j- '-,
-""~
,.,','
~
i
8000
I
-....--
~
~
GENERAl NOTF
T
1. BASE MAP AS COMPILED FROM AMERICAN DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHY. INC.
QUADRANGLES FlLES OF MAY 28, 1996 THE TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAPS REVISED 'SEPTEMBER 1992 BY R.R.P. AND
SUFfOLK COUNTY REAL PROPERTY TAX MAP - KEY MAP OF JUNE 1. 1975.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
POTENTIAL TERMINAL SlTES-
FERRY SERVICE TO MONTAUK.
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
March 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16
LAKE
MONTAUK~
-"
"
......""""~-
.--.....
FORT POND
SA Y _____,
.'
~.. .
...~
--~-
~"~
. -.
",
------.-. -
.,.&
[<F, .
:>!~'. i-i
._ .._____ __._____.___ n
...:'"
---_.~..
Exhibit No.
6-1
_'__ ........_>c..,
. "'~. .." '
---~
.
.
The three most likely sites for a ferry terminal in the Montauk/Napeague area are:
o Fort Pond Bay
o Lake Montauk
o Napeague State Park
These sites are depicted on Exhibit 6-1.
.
.
Fort Pond Bay is located north of the Montauk business district and the Montauk Station of the
LIRR. Prior to World War II, a ferry service to Connecticut existed from Fort Pond Bay. Fort
Pond Bay lost much of its maritime attractiveness when an inlet was dredged to Lake Montauk,
establishing the only protected harbor in the area.
.
.
Roadway access to Fort Pond Bay would be primarily served by Edgemere Street (CR 49), a
north-south route that connects with the existing traffic circle in the Montauk Business District.
An alternative route would follow Edgemere Street, Industrial Road, and Second House Road to
Route 27, west of the Montauk Business District. That route has alignment concerns, and passes
through residential areas.
.
.
.
Development of the Lake Montauk site has been occurring over the last ten years. The Montauk
Yacht Club and Gosman's Dock are two establishments which attract significant numbers of
patrons in the summer season. The Viking Ferry's daily summer service to Block Island and
weekend service to New London departs from Lake Montauk. The popularity of this service
frequency results in overflow parking spilling over from the site onto adjacent properties.
.
6-4
.
.
.
Vehicular access to Lake Montauk is provided by Edgemere Street/Flamingo Avenue (CR 49),
with access routes to Route 27 as described for the Fort Pond Bay site. An alternative to this
access is to utilize West Lake Drive (CR 77) to Route 27, east of the Montauk Business District.
.
.
The Napeague site is located on Napeague Bay, in Napeague State Park. Access to the site
would utilize either Cranberry Hole Road or Napeague Meadow Road. While the latter is in
better condition, it is likely that a substantial majority of ferry traffic would utilize Cranberry
Hole Road, due to its nearly southwesterly orientation, to access Route 27.
6.3.2 Potential Impacts of New Ferry Service to Montauk - General
Regardless of the specific site selected for a ferry terminal in the Montauk/Napeague area,
several common issues will need to be addressed. These include the following:
6.3.2. I Regulatory Approval of New Ferry Route
With the abolishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission, regulatory jurisdiction over
interstate ferry routes has been assumed by the Surface Transportation Board of the United States
Department of Transportation. However, the USDOT has historically not exercised its
jurisdiction with the exception of safety matters. Review of matters related to boating safety are
handled by the Coast Guard, a subsidiary of the USDOT.
.
.
.
.
.
The following paragraphs, prepared by NYSDOT's Passenger Transportation Division,
summarize its opinion on permits and approvals needed to establish a private interstate ferry
service:
.
6-5
.
.
.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC Subsection 1451 et. seq.) covers the
coastal waters and adjacent shore areas of Long Island, New York City, the
Great Lakes and the Hudson River North to Troy. Lake Champlain is not subject
to the act.
.
If a project within these areas requires any federal approval or federal
funding, then the New York Secretary of State is responsible for making a
certification that the action is consistent with the State's approved Coastal
Zone Management Plan. If no federal approval or funding is required, but a
state approval or funding is involved, and the action is subject to SEQRA, then
the applicable state agency makes the consistency certification to the Secretary
of State. As part of the coastal zone program, where there is an approved local
"Waterfront Revitalization Plan" (NYC and some Long Island communities have one)
the certifying party must consult with the municipality in the determination of
the consistency of the project with both the state and local plan.
.
.
All waters within New York State over which passenger ferry service would
operate, are deemed navigable waters within the United States. The Corp.
of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over construction within these navigable
waters. (Construction of wharves, piers, pier extensions and any dredging
and filling within these waters is subject to the jurisdiction of the COE
under 30 USC 401 et. seq.; and 33 USC 1341 et. seq. A permit from COE is
required although these are existing "nationwide" permits which may be
utilized, for example, for the repair of existing piers.) If any federal
approval is required, then the applicant must also obtain a water quality
certificate from the State Department of Environmental Conservation. A
tidal wetland permit, under Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law
may also be required for work in mapped tidal wetlands or adjacent areas.
.
.
.
A case by case analysis is required for all water and shore area construc-
tion to determine the required permitting from COE and DEC. In cases where
there will be no new construction within the water or adjacent to the water,
i.e. where existing terminal facilities will be used, there may be no permit
requirements (although a Coastal Zone Consistency Certification may be required).
6.3.2.2
SEORA (State Environmental Ouality Review Act)
.
The SEQRA process would require an applicant for a proposed ferry terminal to assess the
potential impacts on the transportation system, as well as environmental impacts, such as those
to Town wetlands, aesthetics, air and water quality, and noise. The Town could act as the Lead
.
6-6
.
.
.
Agency for the SEQRA review; the State could assume this role if the Napeague site is assessed,
because it lies on State property. The Napeague site poses particular concerns because
establishment of ferry service there would be in conflict with the Town's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan.
.
.
Assuming that zoning regulations would not preclude establishment of a proposed ferry terminal
in the Montauk/Napeague area, site-specific environmental effects will need to be assessed by the
applicant. The SEQRA lead agency will identify the specific parameters to be evaluated.
.
.
This document attempts to estimate the effects of new ferry service to the Montauk area on the
roadway system which provides access to potential terminal sites, under varying "scenarios" of
ferry activity. In addition, a qualitative discussion of potential environmental affects, i.e. air
quality and noise, is presented, and parking space requirements are estimated. Estimation of
other specific potential impacts to be assessed as part of the SEQRA review are beyond the scope
of this report. These impacts would include determination of site-specific and remote effects on
the following:
Social and Economic
Residential and neighborhood character and stability
Tax base and property values
Religious, health and educational facilities
Economic activity and employment, particularly in the summer season
Agriculture
.
.
.
.
6-7
.
.
Water Duality. Flood Plan. Coastal Zone and Wetland
. Ecology of area
Parks and recreational facilities, including beaches and golf courses
Public utilities
.
.
Water quality
Flooding
Air and Noise Duality. Energy
Air (Qualitative)
Noise (Qualitative)
Energy
Land Use. Joint Development. and Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Regional and community growth
Joint development (i.e. consistency with Land Use Plans)
Natural resources
Solid waste
Threatened and Endangered Species. Stream Modification and Wildlife
Wildlife and waterflow areas
Historic and Archaeological Preservation
Historic and natural landmarks
Coastal Zone Management
Consistency with local plans
Construction Impacts
.
.
.
.
.
.
6-8
.
.
.
6.3.2.2.1
Environmental Effects of Traffic Increases
.
It should be noted that any potential traffic increases on the roadway network providing access
to a new ferry terminal will directly impact the environment. This impact will include
generation of additional vehicle pollutants and noise. This generation of additional air pollutants
is of particular concern, due to the classification of the Nassau-Suffolk Region as a "severe non-
attainment" area for ozone, and a "moderate non-attainment" area for carbon monoxide, as a
result of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Carbon monoxide is emitted by
vehicle exhaust systems. Ozone is formed when sunlight acts on oxides of nitrogen and organic
vapors produced by vehicles.
.
.
.
The extent of pollutants generated is directly related to average speeds of vehicles on any
particular roadway. Any traffic increases on a roadway will lower the average speeds, usually
(depending on the particular pollutant begin analyzed), resulting in an increase in vehicle
emissions. A qualitative analysis of these emissions, utilizing an accepted air quality model such
as Mobile 5B, should be requested as part of the environmental assessment to be prepared in
compliance with SEQRA.
.
.
.
More vehicular noise is generated by acceleration and deceleration than by travel at constant
speeds. Acceleration noise includes that generated by gear changes; tire and brake noise occurs
.
6-9
.
.
.
when vehicles decelerate. Consequently, noise impacts on the roadway system due to traffic
volume increases would be more acute on intersection approaches which require vehicles to stop,
i.e. at stop signs and traffic signals. Noise impacts are normally more evident in the summer,
as people tend to be outside more often, and windows of residences near these intersections tend
to be open more frequently. As a minimum, an estimate of noise effects, in terms of expected
increases in decibel levels should be required as part of the SEQRA process, both for properties
in the vicinity of the proposed ferry terminal, and at key locations along the existing roadway
system.
.
.
.
.
6.3.2.2.2 Parking
Parking requirements for a proposed ferry terminal should be thoroughly investigated. The
required number of parking spaces will be dependent on the type of ferry service provided,
number of vehicles and/or passengers per vessel and number of vessels per day. Adequate space
for loading and unloading of vehicles must be provided if the proposed ferry is designed to
transport vehicles. This would include queuing, or vehicle stacking, lanes.
.
.
Accommodation of all ferry parking on site in the terminal area is critical, in order to preclude
social and traffic flow concerns generated by parking overflowing onto local roads. The
introduction of high speed passenger ferry service to Connecticut from Orient Point in 1995
generated overflow parking conditions at the ferry terminal site in Orient Point, as well as traffic
increases along Route 25.
.
.
6-10
.
.
.
Based on summer observations at Orient Point, it would appear that a minimum of 425 parking
spaces would be required if a ferry service on a similar schedule were to be established in the
Montauk/Napeague area. Exclusive of unloading and loading areas, this would require over
three acres of parking area. More frequent ferry service than the existing six-round trips per day
for the passenger-ferry operation, and more popular service, (i.e. more passengers per vessel),
could significantly increase parking requirements. The Town of Southold has identified the
potential requirement for up to 1,050 spaces, due solely to the high-speed passenger ferry
operation.
.
.
.
.
Institution of passenger ferry service to New York City presents similar concerns, in terms of
estimating parking space requirements. In addition to a dependence on frequency and scheduling
of service, and vessel size, a New York City ferry will generate long-term parking activity. A
significant amount of long-term parking currently occurs in the vicinity of the East Hampton
railroad station. The capacity of the long-term parking area (about 185 vehicles) is exceeded at
times. ~uch of this parking activity appears to be related to "semi-commuting" in the Town.
This can occur when summer renters utilize the railroad to travel to the Town on summer
weekends, returning to their permanent homes and employment during the work week. It is
reasonable to expect that a New York City ferry would generate a similar demand for long term
parking spaces; again, this is dependent upon frequency and scheduling of ferry service and
vessel size.
6.3.2.2.3 Impacts on the Existing Roadway System
On the surface, new ferry service to the Town may appear to have beneficial effects on traffic
.
.
.
.
6-11
.
.
.
conditions due to its potential for converting individual automobile trips to more-efficient mass
transportation. This statement may be especially true for a New York City route. The key
concern, however, will be the creation of additional, undesirable traffic congestion on roadways
and at intersections providing access to a new ferry terminal. In the case of a vehicular ferry,
new traffic will be added to the roadway network providing access to the site. In the case of a
passenger-only service, vehicles must transport customers to and from the ferry site. Similar to
parking requirements, traffic impacts will be dependent on the frequency and type of service
provided.
.
.
6.3.2.2.4
Montauk as a Potential Destination
.
Montauk has always been a tourist attraction, with summer traffic increases largely the result of
its recreational facilities and other tourist amenities.
.
.
Another consideration in establishment of ferry service to Montauk/Napeague is the potential for
dramatic increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and moped activity in this area, since Montauk will be
readily accessible to New England residents as a summer destination. This is difficult to
quantify. An increase in bicycle activity, and the potential introduction of mopeds, may pose
safety concerns, since residents have already identified speeding vehicles and poor bicycle riding
conditions as perceived problems on certain roads in Montauk.
.
.
6.3.3 Site Specific Impacts
An attempt was made to estimate the traffic impacts of a potential ferry servIce to the
Montauk/Napeague area on the roadway network. This analysis does not consider environmental
.
6-12
.
.
.
effects of such a service, including air and noise impacts generated by traffic increases.
Analyses were performed for the following "scenarios" at the three potential ferry terminal sites
at Fort Pond Bay, Lake Montauk and Napeague State Park.
.
.
Scenario A - Passenger ferry, with 350 passenger capacity. Assuming three persons per vehicle,
117 vehicles would be attracted by each ferry. This data correlates well with the 255 parked
vehicles observed on a summer weekday at Orient Point, after departure of two passenger-only
ferries (128 vehicles per ferry). For the AM time period, a rounded number of 100 vehicles was
projected for the peak direction of travel for this least-intensive scenario, with most passengers
travelling by private car. It was estimated that an arriving ferry at MontauklNapeauge in the
morning would carry a similar number of passengers; however, bus service to Montauk!
Napeauge and the South Fork could meet the incoming ferry. If 40 cars and taxis could
accommodate 80 passengers, the remainder could be transported from the terminal using seven
buses.
.
.
.
.
Scenario B - Passenger/vehicular ferry, accommodating 350 passengers (equal to Scenario A)
plus 100 vehicles. This would generate about 117 vehicles (as in Scenario A) plus 100 additional
vehicles for a total of217 vehicles. For this scenario, to be conservative, 250 vehicles were used
in the peak direction of travel.
.
.
Scenario C - This scenario assumes the arrival of each ferry (Scenario A and Scenario B) within
the same approximate time period; i.e. one hour. Scenario C, therefore, reflects the total
6-13
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 6-1
FERRY TRAFFIC
VEHICULAR BREADKOWN
WEEKEND AM WEEKEND PM
One Way Peak To Terminal From Terminal To Terminal From Terminal
Vehicles Cars Buses * Cars Buses * Cars Buses * Cars Buses *
SCENARIO A
(passengers Only) 100 98 2 40 7 40 7 98 2
SCENARIO B
(Passengers and
Vehicles) 250 247 3 160 11 160 11 247 3
SCENARIO C 350 345 5 200 18 200 18 345 5
(Combination of A
and B)
* 40 Passengers Each
RGD:efr
10/22/96
.
vehicular impact of Scenarios A and B.
.
This data is summarized in Table 6-1.
.
In order to assess potential impacts of a new ferry service under each Scenario, the ferry-
generated traffic was assigned to the roadway network providing access to each potential
.
terminal site. Specific percentages of traffic assigned to roadways were as follows:
Fort Pond Bay Site:
-50% Route 27 west via Second House and Industrial Roads*
-35% - Route 27 west via CR 49 through "the circle"*
-10% - Route 27 east
-5% - CR 49 north
.
*Scenario "B75" changed these percentages to 20 percent and 65 percent, respectively.
.
Lake Montauk Site:
-65 % - Route 27 west, via CR 77
-10% - Route 27 west, via Second House and Industrial Roads
-10% - Route 27 west, via CR 49 through "the circle"
-10 % - Route 27 west, via CR 77, terminating in Montauk Business
District
-5% - Route 27 east, via CR 77
.
Napeague Site:
-70% - Route 27 west, via Cranberry Hole Road
-20% - Route 27 east, via Napeague Meadow Road
-10% - Bluff Road west, via Cranberry Hole Road
.
The assigned traffic was added to turning movement volumes at key intersections near each of
the proposed terminal sites. These volumes were obtained on a Saturday afternoon in August
.
1996, or extrapolated from summer traffic counts taken in earlier years. Intersectional capacity
analysis was then performed utilizing the procedures in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, in
.
order to determine the "levels of service" for each of the critical movements at each of the
6-14
.
.
intersections. The critical movements at these unsignalized intersections are turns from the main
.
roadway ("uncontrolled by stop signs") and all movements from the minor (stop-controlled)
road. Saturday morning traffic volumes were estimated from machine count data and capacity
.
analyses were performed for that time period as well.
Level of service is a measure of traffic flow or a roadway or at an intersection, with "A" being
.
the best level, "E" being equal to the roadway's capacity and "F" being failure, or conditions
exceeding capacity. At unsignalized intersections, Level of Service "F" exists when there are
insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow side street traffic to cross the main street safely. For
.
any movement, Level of Service is defined as follows:
Level of Service
Average Peak Delay (SeclVeh)
Greater Than Less Than or Equal To
.
A
B
C
D
E
F
o
5
10
20
30
45
5
10
20
30
45
.
The results of these analyses for the three potential ferry terminal sites appear on Tables 6-2,
.
6-3 and 6-4. At each intersection, the overall Level of Service is the worst level for any
movement analyzed.
.
At each site, i.e. on each table, it appears that there is at least one intersection which will suffer
a degradation in Level of Service under Scenario A; impacts under Scenarios B and C are more
.
severe, because traffic generated under these Scenarios increases, when compared with Scenario
6-15
.
.
.
.
INTERSECTION
.
.
..
.
.
TABLE 6-2
TOWN OF EAST HAl\fi>TON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PRELIMINARY CAPACITY ANALYSIS (SATURDAY)
FERRY AT FORT POND BAY
EXISTING
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
tI~*~.~Th~~]~~'~1~!I[III~m.I!II:?';'
MONTAUK HWY @N. EDGEMERE ST - WEST (The Circle)
EDGEMERE AVE (CR 49)@N. EDGEMERE ST (The Circle)
B
B
SBLT
SBLT
);t@~I$'t@,ImlV$~llPI
-.-,-.,..".:...:.,..,..'..,._'.....,_.,........,..,..:,-....,-,'.:.',..
...-..".....,...-.-.................................._........-'.-
.....,.......-"-,...,......,._...,,.
..--.-:-,...,...:.:.;.:-:.>-'-.-.,.:-,:.:.;.,,-.,-....-,-,.,,-,
.... .........
INTERSECTION
MONTAUK HWY @N. EDGEMERE ST - WEST (The Circle)
EDGEMERE AVE (CR 49)@N. EDGEMERE ST (The Circle)
lmQWimR$$@:ImlW$~llPII:....II..i..........................
SBLT - SOtITHBOUND LEFT TURN
NBLT - NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN
NBTH- NORTHBOUND THRU
SBTH- SOtITHBOUND THRU
SBRT - SOtITHBOUND RIGHT TURN
SCENARIO A
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
AM
SCENARIO B
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
SCENARIO B75 .
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
B
B
SBLT
SBLT
C
B
.
SBLT
SBLT
.
.
SCENARIO C
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
F
C
SBLT
SBLT
EXISTING
CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE L.O.S. MOVE
PM
C
B
f .....NBLTi$BLT 'i1illl$~41;' ....11 . NBL'tSBLT
'i?~ij~l!~II: !\!~TI!;$!!TI{ III~~$ij~
E
C
SBLT
SBLT
F
C
SBLT
SBLT
F
C
E
B
SBLT
SBL T,SBRT
SBLT
SBLT
SBLT
SBLT
. SCENARIO B75 - SAME AS SCENARIO B EXCEPT
75% OF FERRY BOUND TRAFFIC TRAVELS
THROUGH THE MONTAUK TRAFFIC CIRCLE.
CRITICAL L.O.S. - WORST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ANY
MOVEMENT
3/19/91
hcafer.wkl
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 6-3
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PRELIMINARY CAPACITY ANALYSIS (SATURDAY)
FERRY AT LAKE MONTAUK
INTERSECTION
EXISTING
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
AM
SCENARIO A
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.s. MOVE
SCENARIO B
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
.
.
.
SCENARIO C
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
MONTAUK HWY @N. EDGEMERE ST - WEST (The Circle)
EDGEMERE AVE (CR 49) @ N. EDGEMERE ST (The Circle)
~~$X@l"lffl>tt$~~!:;::i:l!:i;t'
MONTAUK HWY @ W. LAKE DRIS. FERN ST (CR77)
SBLT
SBLT
B
B
B
NB
SBLTffH
C
B
SBLT
SBLT
SBLT
SBLT
C
B
SBLT
SBLT
C
B
C
NB
SBLTffH
NB
SBLTffH
D
NB
C
INTERSECTION
EXISTING
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
~51m4;~g~~[~f~@li!;~~~g;!~B~~
,'- ',',' '.' "":-:"::::::::-','::,:,;;:,;::,::::::::::::::::::::::::{)};:tt~:::::r:::~:::::::::tht:::~:::::::::::::::::: .,;.:.:.:.:...:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:........,..
MONTAUK HWY @ N. EDGEMERE ST - WEST (The Circle)
EDGEMERE AVE (CR 49) @ N. EDGEMERE ST (The Circle)
SBLT
SBLT,SBRT
E
B
pPQ~$'ll@j~W$~WfiI! it
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::;:.:.;.::,.:.-'...........
.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.,;.;.;.:,.;
.'......,.,'....,.,;...,.,.....,...-.
.......:':.y':':'..:.:-:.:. ,:,:~.,.:...'
MONTAUK HWY @ W. LAKE DRIS. FERN ST (CR77)
E
sa
SCENARIO A
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
PM
SCENARIO B
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.O.S. MOVE
F
B
F
NB, sa
SBLT - SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN
NBL T - NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN
NBTH - NORTHBOUND THRU
SBTH - SOUTHBOUND THRU
SBRT - SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN
WBLTffH - COMBINATION WESTBOUND LEFT TURNffHRU
SBLTffH - COMBINATION SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURNffHRU
NB-NORTHBOUND
SCENARIO C
CRITICAL CRITICAL
L.a.S. MOVE
F
B
SBLT,NBLT
SBLT,SBRT
F
NB, SB
3/19/97
hcafemh.wk1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 6-4
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PRELIMINARY CAPACITY ANALYSIS (SATURDAY)
FERRY AT NAPEAGUE - EFFECTS AT MONTAUK HWY & CRANBERRY HOLE RD INT.
AM PM
DIRECTION EXISTING SCENARIO A SCENARIO B SCENARIO C EXISTING SCENARIO A SCENARIO B SCENARIO C
NORTHBOUND B B C D F F F F
SOUTHBOUND B B B C C D F F
EASTBOUND A A A A A A B B
WESTBOUND A A A A A A A A
CRITICAL L.O.S. B B C D F F F F
CRITICAL L.O.S. - WORST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ANY MOVEMENT
.
.
A. The existence of poor levels of service under current conditions manifests itself in delays
experienced by motorists, particularly when attempting to enter main roads such as Route 27
from side roads. The existing Levels of Service are consistent with those computed for roadway
segments in the Town, which appear on Exhibit 8-11, and are further evidence of the fragile
summer traffic conditions at key intersections in the Town.
.
.
As vehicle delays increase, lines (or queues) of traffic waiting to turn onto the main road (or to
turn left from the main road) will increase correspondingly. Shown on Table 6-5 are calculated
"queue lengths", in numbers of vehicles, for critical movements at selected intersections under
the different scenarios. Although very high calculated queue length values may not actually be
reached, because motorists will begin to accept smaller gaps in traffic under more congested
conditions, they are useful in assessing the relative impact of the various scenarios.
.
.
.
The level of service analysis results for the various ferry scenarios can be considered to be
conservative in some respects. For example, no adjustments were made to the existing "peak
hour factors" on the approaches to the intersections when analyzing proposed scenarios. The
peak hour factor is an indication of uniformity of traffic flow throughout the hour. A peak hour
factor of 1.00 indicates totally uniform flow, i.e. a consistent number of vehicles entering an
intersection in each IS-minutes period of the peak hour. An intersection subject to "surges" in
traffic could have a significantly lower peak hour factor. Based on the tendency for traffic flow
to and from a ferry to be more clustered near arrival and departure times, reduction of existing
peak hour factors would be expected. Table 6-6 is a comparison of capacity analyses and queue
.
.
.
6-16
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 6.5
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CALCULATED QUEUE LENGTHS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS
. 95 % QUEUE LENGTHS I NO. OF VEHj FOR CRITICAL MOVEMENT
FERRY AT INTERSECTION TIME EXISTING SCENARIO A SCENARIO B SCENARIO B 75 SCENARIO C
FORT POND BAY MONTAUK HWY @ AM 1 1 2 2 3
O.M.H. I SECOND HOUSE RD PM 36 40 49 78 53
LAKE MONTAUK MONTAUK HWY @ AM 1 1 2 N/A 3.
O.M.H. I SECOND HOUSE RD PM 36 43 55 N/A 58
NAPEAGUE MONTAUK HWY @ AM 1 1 2 N/A 5
CRANBERRY HOLE RD PM 14 35 100 N/A 134
.95% CHANCE THAT NUMBER OF WAITING VEHICLES WILL BE EQUAL TO OR
LESS THAN THESE VALUES. THESE ARE THEORETICAL NUMBERS, WHICH MAY
NOT ACTUALLY BE REACHED (SEE TEXT PAGE 6-16).
N/A - NOT APPLICABLE
.
.
.
TABLE 6-6
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
LEVEL OF SERVICE USING
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ADJUSTMENT
DUE TO FERRY TRAFFIC SURGE
.
.
.
.
.
MONTAUK HIGHWAY @ OLD MONTAUK HIGHWAY / SECOND HOUSE ROAD
FERRY LOCATION: FORT POND BAY
TIME PERioD: PM
EXISTING P.H.F. = .95
EXISTING
CRITICAL MOVEMENT L.O.S. F
QUEUE LENGl'H(VEHICLES) .36 .
...., ""...."..
....-'-'.:-.-:.:..,-:---..-.'.
SCENARIO A SCENARIO B SCENARIO B 75 SCENARIO C
NBLT&TH . NB LT & T8 NS;LT&TH
SSLT&l'H . SBLT &l'H .. .SSl1'&TH ....
F
F
F
ADJUSTED P.H.F. = .85
EXISTING SCENARIO A SCENARIO B SCENARIO B 75 SCENARIO C
CRITICAL MOVEMENT L.O.S. NtA
N6 LT &TH . NBLT&rH
.....SSl'T&1H.. ....NsLt&TH
F
F
F
QUEUE LENGjH(V~HlbLES) ....NiA ..... ...... .. ..58
.
.
.
.
.
length results at one intersection, under both the existing peak hour factor and one reduced by
0.1, which would not be an unusual occurrence for an intersection influenced by ferry traffic.
It can be seen that, while level of service results are equal to, or worse than those with the
existing peak hour factor, calculated queue lengths increase significantly.
.
.
Another conservative aspect of capacity analyses for the ferry scenarios is that off-peak impacts
may be greater than the peak conditions analyzed. For example, early morning ferry traffic
bound for a New England "day trip" might be comparable in magnitude to peak-hour ferry trips;
however, the additional traffic would represent a larger percent increase because the existing
traffic volume is lower in the off-peak period. This situation could translate into a greater
deterioration in level of service in the off-peak period than in the peak hour. This situation
could also occur in the off-season period as well.
.
.
.
Additionally, the analyses are conservative in that consideratoin has not been given to the effects
of new higher-speed vessels on generation of additional passengers. Generation of potential .
passengers by specific Connecticut casinos has also not been addressed in these scenarios.
.
.
It may be possible to mitigate, to a degree, certain poor levels of service by installing left or
right turn lanes at some of these locations. However, since in many cases these lanes already
exist, and the principal reason for excessive delays is the near-continuous flow of traffic on the
main road, installation of turning lanes may not be sufficient to mitigate the deterioration in level
of service caused by the traffic increases.
.
6-17
.
..,
u
n
,
u
.
n
.....
n
t
TABLE 6-7
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF MONTAUK FERRY ON ROUTE 27
LEVEL OF SERVICE - SUMMER
....
'"'
.-
p
...
LOCA nON
ONE WAY FERRY
TRAFRC INCREASE
PERCENTAGE VOLUME
r
West of Montauk (No. 38)
85%
170
eo
r
L.
Amagansett (No. 26)
60%
120
Wainscott (No.5)
40%
'80
...
fL
[
i;
L.
NOTES:
...........................
.......u...........................
..............
.................
............................
............................
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
'i""';'ij."""".2...""""""""
:~~~~~~~~~~~]~j~!~ I~~~ill ~i~~~~ ~~~~~j j~~~1~~~ijl
l.,~lll!::.!:
............................
........................................................
tll?ITtMHt
............................
............................
..........................
....... ....
...................
................
................
...............
....... ............................W ITH.FERR..
.......................................-. ..
....................................... . ...-.',
""""",.", """""""","I""""""""""""""""""""......"..'.,..x.",. ...,.....V:
.""'" "'PEAKflOUS'" """PEflCENl?"""""""""""""""""""""""""
........,vOrruM~!~iiNcAEi~~I~:llli6J~Mj
...........................................~................. ................~...................................... ..-...............-...-.-.........................
............................... ............................ .........................
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::~::;::;::;;:;;;:;::;;::::: ::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;::;:;::;::::::~:::::; :::::=:=:..:.:.:.:;:;:;.::::::...........:.:.:...
1::111Iiliillililliiillii!IIIIII!!!lliliilii:
Ili;!IIII'!I:..~!'..:!!iill!.:!!!l;~:..!:
:;:;:::::::;::::::::::::~::;::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::: ::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::;::::} .:::::::::::::;:::::::::::;~:::::::~:::::::::::
WITHOUT FERRY
PEAK HOUR
VOLUME L.O.S.
1,936
E
2006
PEAK HOU
VOLUME
2,106
2,720
3,281
WITH FERRY
PERCENT
INCREASE
9%
5%
3%
L.O.S.
E-
F
F
1. Assume total ferry traffic in peak direction is generated by arrival of both passenger-only, and vehicular ferries. Assign 100 vehicles to each vessel.
2. Reduction in percentages for Amagansett and Wainscott reflects dispersion of traffic and distance from ferry terminal.
3. Five percent growth rate per year used to obtain future traffic volumes without ferry.
[
4"
L;
r
,
~.
t
i r
I .
'~
.
[
RGD:efr
04/30/97
(~
L
.
2,600
F
3,201
F
.
.
In addition to effects on operating conditions at intersections in the vicinity of a Montauk!
Napeague-area terminal, roadway segments elsewhere in the Town would be affected. Table 6-7
is an estimate of the effects on peak hour level of service at three locations along Route 27 when
passenger-only and vehicular ferries arrive simultaneously. Traffic increases in the peak
direction of travel between 3 and 10 percent have been estimated, in some instances resulting in a
degradation in level of service.
.
.
.
Based on data for the existing Orient Point-New London ferry service, establishment of service
using similar vessels and scheduling to the Montauk!Napeague area could transport 800,000
passengers (including drivers) per year. On an annual basis, this could translate into 320,000
additional vehicles or an average of about 900 per day. Based on existing traffic volumes on
Route 27 west of Montauk, if 85 % of these 900 vehicles were added to existing traffic at that
location, daily traffic increases of 7 percent would be realized. Since seasonal traffic fluctuation
appears to be greater in Montauk than elsewhere in the Town, based on count data east of West
Lake Drive, the percentage increase in the "off season" (April) could be as high as 21 percent.
6.3.4 Roadway Access
Unlike the Route 25 access to Orient Point, there is no direct access from an east-west roadway,
i.e. Route 27,to a potential ferry site in the Montauk/Napeauge area. Exclusive of capacity
effects, there are the following concerns with access to each potential site, as follows:
Fort Pond Bay
Roadway access would primarily be by means of Edgemere Street/Flamingo Avenue (CR 49)
.
.
.
.
.
6-18
.
.
.
which intersects Route 27 at the traffic circle in the business district. Speeding concerns exist
on this route.
.
The alternative route to Route 27, via Industrial and Second House Roads, is undesirable due
to curvature deficiencies and its traversal of residential areas. It would be difficult to restrict
ferry traffic from utilizing this route.
.
The Route 27/01d Montauk Highway/Second House Road intersection is a high accident
location.
.
.
T .llke Montauk
West Lake Drive (CR 77) is expected to accommodate the bulk of the traffic destined for this
site. The concerns identified for the Fort Pond Bay site are applicable to Lake Montauk as well,
because Edgemere Street/Flamingo Avenue (CR 49) also provides access to this site.
.
.
An access route to the site via West Lake Drive would pass through the following high accident
locations in the Montauk area:
Route 27/01d Montauk Highway/Second House Road
CR 49 (Flamingo Avenue)/CR 77 (West Lake Drive)
Route 27 at CR 77
.
.
6-19
.
.
.
Napea~e
Cranberry Hole Road would provide the primary access to the site because of its southwest-to-
northeast orientation. There are concerns with the width of this roadway, as well as horizontal
and vertical curves, particularly at the bridge over the Long Island Rail Road. The bridge itself
has significant structural deficiencies, which will require correction by the Long Island Rail
Road.
.
.
.
Access to the Napeague site via the existing Cranberry Hole Road would be on a roadway with
inferior horizontal and vertical alignment and width. Existing traffic volumes on Cranberry Hold
Road are low, with a two-way average daily volume of approximately 1,500 vehicles occurring
in the summer. The roadway serves residences and the State Park. The park contains extensive
wetland areas and is a New York State Significant Habitat. Although alignment and width of the
roadway is inferior, since there are no plans for significant developments in this area of the
Town, traffic volumes would not be expected to increase significantly in the future. Percentage-
wise, traffic increases on Cranberry Hold Road due to implementation of ferry service to
Napeague State Park would be substantial. Assignment of 80 percent of the aforementioned
potential average daily ferry traffic of 900 vehicles would represent a daily traffic increase of
nearly 50 percent in the summer, and a higher percentage in the off-season. Traffic volume
increases of this magnitude on a roadway with these physical and traffic volume conditions would
be undesirable.
.
.
.
.
.
6-20
.
.
This route experiences a significant of non-motorized travel (i.e. bicyclists and rollerbladers)
.
during the summer season. Due to its current narrow width, lack of shoulders, and alignment
deficiencies, significant increases in vehicular traffic would raise safety concerns for these modes
.
of travel.
.
6.3.5 Regional Implications
A new ferry route to the Town of East Hampton from Connecticut should be examined on a
regional basis. Undoubtedly, a significant increase in percentage of New Englanders travelling
to the Town would be expected; currently, based on Tables 2-2 and 2-3, only 4-8 percent of
traffic entering the Town emanates from New England states. Potential traffic increases will be
experienced in Southampton as well. Future highway construction on Route 27 which will
enable a motorist to travel from New York City to Southampton (via Southern State Parkway)
without encountering a traffic signal, and completion of an HOV lane on the Long Island
Expressway, may attract motorists to a Montauk/Napeague-New England ferry link. Motorists
travelling from East Hampton to the Orient Point ferry may re-route to Montauk/Napeague. It
should be noted that Suffolk County's 1990 Ferry Access Study concluded that the best route for
new Cross-Sound service would be from Shoreham to New Haven. The recent developments
concerning LILCO' s future could remove certain obstacles to construction of a ferry terminal on
its property at Shoreham, and could make this a viable route.
.
.
.
.
.
6.4
POTENTIAL FERRY ACTIVITY
.
It was noted previously that impacts of new ferry service are dependent on the type of service
6-21
.
.
.
provided, as well as its frequency. There is real concern that once established, current local
legislation would not preclude a ferry operator from drastically changing the nature of service, or
from increasing the number and sizes of vessels. Should this be the case, it is important that the
most intensive ferry operation be analyzed, in terms of environmental and transportation impacts,
prior to issuance of the required local permits.
.
.
6.5
RECOMMENDATIONS
.
Potential ferry service to the Town from New York City or New England must be examined on a
regional basis, for consistency with transportation goals of the East End as a whole.
.
Environmental, economic and social issues will impact the quality of life of MontauklNapeague-
area residents must be thoroughly investigated as part of the SEQRA process. In terms of
transportation-related issues, effects of vehicular traffic increases on noise and air quality must be
addressed. These parameters must be evaluated both at key intersections and segments of the
highway network, as well as at the specific terminal site. Provision of adequate on-site parking is
a major concern, based on current experience at the Orient Point Ferry Terminal.
.
.
.
As noted in Section 12.4 of this report, the Town is at a "crossroads" in term of managing
demand on its highway system in the summer season. This conclusion was reached by analyzing
the existing levels of service on key roadways and at critical intersections. Level of service
results depicted on Table 3-1, under a 5 percent annual summer traffic growth, indicate "failure"
conditions on Route 27 at two of the three locations analyzed. This growth rate is conservative,
.
6-22
.
.
in that current average growth at these locations is about 6 percent per year. Route 27 west of
.
Montauk would reach capacity (Level of Service E) in less than ten years. Ironically, future
capacity improvements to Route 27 (elimination of traffic signals) and the Long Island
.
Expressway (HOV lanes) may further increase summer traffic growth in East Hampton. The
existing roadway system is incapable of absorbing significant traffic growth due to anyone
project or development, ferry service included. Therefore, as is the case for future potential
.
developments, due to the critical capacity conditions of the roadway network, it is recommended
that any ferry service causing a deterioration equal in magnitude to a full level of service (as
defmed in the Highway Capacity Manual) at any intersection or highway segment not be
.
permitted. In addition, any proposed modifications to the highway system as a result of the
proposed ferry should conform to the following criteria. These criteria were established as a
.
result of consistent, public input during the course of this study, and are based on the desire to
maintain the Town's rural character:
.
o No new roads with the potential for attracting "bypass" traffic should be constructed.
o No additional through travel lanes should be constructed on existing roads.
o No additional traffic signals should be installed.
o Potential traffic growth on existing bypass routes should be minimized.
.
These criteria are generally consistent with those previously developed by the Planning Board,
and included in the Arterial Highway Capacity Study for Montauk prepared in 1986. The
.
preliminary analysis of three ferry terminal sites in the Montauk/Napeague area, while general in
nature, follows procedures which would be undertaken in the SEQRA process. The results
.
6-23
.
.
.
indicate that traffic increases due to potential ferry activity will result in the aforementioned
decrease of one level of service at key intersections near the terminal sites. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Town adopt zoning regulations to prevent new ferry service from being
established to the Montauk/Napeauge area.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6-24
.
7.0 AIRPORTS
.
7.1
TOWN AIRPORT
The Town of East Hampton owns and operates its own airport, which is located in Wainscott
along Daniels Hole Road north of Montauk Highway. The airport is classified as a transport
category commercial service airport. An Airport Layout Plan Up-Date was prepared in May
of 1994. This plan assessed existing conditions at the airport and determined the proposed
facilities needed to satisfy aviation demands over the next 20 years.
.
.
There are three existing runways at the airport, one of which can accommodate small business
jets and power driven air charter aircraft. In 1992, there were a total of 33,000 take-offs and
landings at the East Hampton Airport. Future projections are for this number to double after
the year 2002. The 1994 Airport Layout Plan Up-Date recommended that the following projects
be undertaken:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Convert Runway 16-34 to a taxiway (summer only)
Construct new terminal building
Construct automobile parking area
Reconstruct airport access road
Relocate one building and demolish five buildings on airport property
Construct transient/commuter apron
Construct aircraft parking apron
Install precision instrument approach to Runway 10-28
7-1
.
.
A copy of the specific airport layout plan (summer operation) depicting these improvements is
shown as Exhibit 7-1. Construction of a new terminal, access road and additional parking is
currently underway.
.
Another proposed improvement involved the relocation of Daniels Hole Road, which provides
access to the airport from Route 27. Three alternatives have been developed for relocating the
. roadway. The relocation is necessary because the roadway constitutes an obstruction to both
Runways 16 and 22, and it is located within the safety area for Runway 28.
.
.
In 1988, the Town prepared an Environmental Impact Statement, which determined that the
terminal building, access road and apron projects would not cause significant environmental
effects. Other proposed projects would require a similar determination before they can proceed
to construction.
.
7.2
MONTAUK AIRPORT
.
Montauk Airport is a privately owned and operated facility located on the east side of Lake
Montauk. The airport has one, 3,500 foot long paved runway and accommodates private
aircraft.
.
7.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The future layout of the Town airport was studied in 1994, and the Town is in the process of
implementing the recommended improvements. The remainder of the identified projects should
.
7-2
.
1i
~
~
'" i'i g
~ ~~! ~
9 ~-= H
1-4 ~8; :I
~ Iii I slls iil
~ !!el~13!!!'K5KK!~~K ~
~ jj~ ~ii~llHi3~~~j~~i ~ ~
! ""5 Q ~~"" i~~~=!W ! IW
~ ss=a, iaSS !!"O~i S~ 8
! ;;~~~II~iii~~iii~~ii~~s~
'"
~ _N".~~~.~g=uos~~.c2N=~~
\
""' ....."',,,,,,,,,~~
l i
i' \
I
\I
....
I
,...
I-
m
i:
><
w
~
~
:I
~i ~
~I ~-
. =~
~ =5
t
~~ i
,
-~-
~n;
it ~~
r= ~l
~g ,
~. iil
i~i
~
""/
I .....
/'
.'
..~~<.~..~~ ." ."
-
e~
;~
~~"""
"
.
"
"
,
.....\........ ,I.;'
1>\ -,
....\ :
~ :
~" \ !
(" \)
, .
, :
, .
~ .
~jj r"i \,
gt; ... : ~ \
i~N ~~ !:'
.~~ ~I i \ ,
"-! I!! : l
d : ~ ;;
:1 m:-
! ~
~ I
. ; I ~
~ .' .
S< '.
: :
" '.
, .
ii. ! :
, .
\ .
"
"
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
: +
! I i
I A! ~
, ~""'IIII
\ i \ Ii
, .. -r I
! ill
L_ : ____+___ .l-.J
:
i
!iN
=r~
~~~
d'"
~
r
5 eili
~:- .~~
iE~ !~=-
. ~~~~
-=
"'''''IJSl.Il)~ JIOJ
$I/h_
I .
, '
I ,
I '\
I '\
, ,
i..-..-----..-..-.-.---..-..-..-..-..-..-..~.:1.-- "_..\
1 \
! \
i ~ \
I .F \
. .
I \
I \
I \
, ,
I \
I \
, \
, ,
, "\
I \
. \
i \
I \
. ,
, . ,
i \
! \
, \
, ,
, ,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
~
"
,
i
\
\~
\;
ali
i\~
\~
~~
~l !!l
'd vi . @
- .
~ i @
~
~~
-c.
g.
....'
~
gj
h
~~
ml'
'il;l
;!ilr
if!i!
IBII'
illil
1'1111
H!I
diili
fg!I!:
~!i!.1!
~ <Xl
. IS
W ...,.
i . E
~ ~ ! ~
~ a ~ iI J!JI
!~~ 5 il~ II'
;;:-Cjll, 0 ; ~ ' I',
5 ~5 ~ i tI U ,
:~!ii ~ D ~ ,
~~a 15 aa; D'
~ i ~ iI
.. <C I ...
. . . ~
~ iC:'"
~ MRij
" ilU
o
1
J
!Ill
o
H
VI
H
>
... "
a: .
c
~
~ ': Ill'
II ~!l~ II
. I, 11
: i: I
!
"
o
ffi
ffi 5 i
..J gsL U~~
~~I~w =c~1
:~;:~!nil;
MOO~~~""MM
~~~e~eii~g
o
~ ""
II:: ..~
;s;i: '"'
, ~ .=
,,~ e
hl._. ~u~
iElnbo:i"'i 5
lot .. . .
1;\m
t ~ 5 II
.~a~~~~~~a
~~.. -==""fw
~!l~ Ii =!
~ !tib:q~~~ln~;
oct l-4..d.._'i: ..t
o ~t ~ i
~ wI . N
~ ~~~~~~~~~~
a: ~ l&. Ii >"
~
i~a~:i~"w;w
!;:t..o..l':ii~i
~l!
~ ~
!l8 ~
~ ilHh~N
~nu=;'
fUnul
!l.n.!jiR
a;a....~~"
Z. b
.
." 5
<<u~"E~I>
t- ~..t;ialo.;H ...~
Cl ea~..~1 :;~
....wz.au ~
a: i
o
<L
I!l ""H
<< p9"< W
~5Hh "I'
::;5U"~P ~
~ul'3! I
I~Si=lgU
.iiiULg..
~
~
~
i ...-:;;-.......-:
'\ . ,
~
~
~
i
~
. .:.,' '..J eL ,J L.J.,.[ J t"... t....~ l.. t....:l [.; l....J CeJ L....J 1lIl.....J t..-'o. ~ L;.J.r.......I (_....
," .
.
.'
be completed in accordance with the plan.
.
Wainscott residents are not supportive of improvements which would encourage growth in air
.
travel to East Hampton. As a result, it is recommended that only the following projects be
undertake~ at the airport:
o Those projects identified in the Airport Layout Plan.
.
o Other projects with only aircraft safety-related purposes, Le. those which would not
encourage additional airport operations (Le. takeoffs and landings). Examples would be
.
. runway resurfacing and aircraft signage projects.
."
.
.
.
.
.
7-3
.
.
8.0 IDGHW AYS
.
.
8.1 IDGHWAYNETWORK
The Town of East Hampton has an extensive highway network, consisting of State, County and
Town Roads. State roads are Route 27, which traverses the entire Town for 24.8 miles from
west to east, and Route 114, which extends northward from Route 27 to the Village of Sag
Harbor, a distance of about 6.5 miles. Key County Roads (CR) are the following:
o CR 40 - Three Mile Harbor Road - Connects East Hampton and Springs (2.5 miles
long)
o CR 41 - Springs-Fireplace Road - Connects East Hampton and Springs (3.1 miles long)
o CR 49 - Edgemere Street/Flamingo Avenue - Connects Route 27 in Montauk with the
north end of Lake Montauk (3.1 miles long)
o CR 59 - Long Lane - Connects East Hampton and Stephen Hands Path (1.0 miles long)
o CR 77 - West Lake Drive - Connects Route 27 in Montauk with the north end of Lake
Montauk (3.1 miles long)
.
.
.
.
.
The remainder of the highway network is comprised of Town, Village and private roadways.
There are approximately -- miles of roadway maintained by the Town. With the exception of
Route 27 through a portion of East Hampton Village, which consists of two lanes in each
direction, all roads are one through lane in each direction. Shoulders exist along many of the
arterial and collector roadways.
.
.
8-1
.
.
.
For purposes of highway classification, East Hampton lies in a rural area. Route 27 is the only
road which is part of the National Highway System. In addition, there are several roads and
segments of roads, which are currently available for Federal aid. These roads are shown on
Exhibit 8-1.
.
8.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
.
Traffic volumes were obtained by means of two methods, machine (automatic) counters and
turning movement counts at key intersections. Machine counters recorded two-way traffic
volume at 30 locations in August 1996. From this data, average summer daily traffic volumes
were estimated. This data appears on Exhibit 8-2, along with estimated off-season average daily
traffic volumes at each location.
.
.
.
Route 27 carries the highest volume of traffic within the Town, with about 29,000 vehicles
crossing the Southampton-East Hampton Town boundary on an average summer day. This
volume reduces to about 22,000 vehicles east of East Hampton Village and about 9,000 vehicles
east of Montauk. Route 114 at the Village of Sag Harbor/Town of East Hampton boundary
carries about 12,000 vehicles on an average summer day. Other roadways carrying over 10,000
vehicles include:
.
o
Newtown Lane, North Main Street, and Cedar Street in the Village of East Hampton,
north of Route 27
o Three Mile Harbor Road (CR 40), north of East Hampton Village
o Edgemere Street (CR 49) north of Route 27 in Montauk.
.
.
8-2
.
~
L
[
.
,..
lJ
[
.
P'-.
L
f"
t
r
L
r
..
[
n
tt.
I'
! [
I
~
c
t
f
t
r
~
e~
~
"
Cl
a
ew
0
~
GRAPHIC SCALE
s': ~.,
-
r
T
"""
I
~
DRAFT
,..."",,,,.-...,.,
( IN FEET )
inch = 5280ft.
""'"'-"'"
_/
-------
I elSE W.P AS COMPILEO F'R(>>,! Aj,lERtCAN OIGlTAL C/SlTOGRAPHY. 'NC.
Ol.!ACIRANGLts FlUS or WIt 2ll. 1996. TI1[TOWN OFUST HAM!>TON
~OEPAIlT\lENTWAPSRF1JISEO$EPTEl.ElER199;:8'1R.R.P,ANO
5UF'FOlJ( COlJ~RE.o.LPROPER1'iTAX r.tA.P - ~E'!'!.I,APOFJUNE 1, 1975.
"y'" -;,"'
/-
./.
f
~. "';-',
II ":.:---
..
...
.1..
?0::f]::/"/
^'.""n~.
',."'-:-
PROSPECT
DIlJ,
,
'/
.:.::;::;:-:=::';:::::'" . '~,:",:,:,::'::~~~:~~~;::~~:~:~~;~;..::~;..~ONTl\UK "
:~
~!:"",,,,,, """,::', :':":/:"'''''~''':''':'''':~'\~:"~"~,,,,,,,,:,, '~, '\l ~~ ;'
::':'::::'::':-:~. . .~;;t~ BEACH ~, rJ
.......~..~ ': .:.:~~.::~.l::':, '.
O<l>_ '~:...::.;.~.:., .~
DITt'H
PlAINS
........
..
----
--
"
'-'-- --.----
--'''. Z::.:.',
~~--S':'~~~'
.
. '!,~ ~,.-:.:;.; 7'"
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
'- - "'.
-"-
:~:~~~L- '
~.'""
'-....
FIREPU('E
....
,. ."'~
__": ~-r'
FEDERAL AID ELIGffiLE ROADWAYS
,...:.?:=.~.=;
L. K. McLEAN
February 1997
ASSOCIATES, P.C.
L.K.M.A. Proj. No, 30-000-16
Exhibit Nl).
8-1
- --", "....,-.-.
KEY
--=._~:...z,,..._,
~;,c'~~~
SYMBOL
~
DESCRIPTION
NATIONAL HIGHWAY
SYSTEM ROADWAY
---
FEDERAL AID
EUGlBLE ROADWAY
-r
,~
..-,_.' ;-"
./\':
I'
,:
,
~
r:~
-\~~
~ ;~
----
";.-".:-'E,;-'::';;:: SA"
~'
~~---~------._--..
"
...'
....
...
DEV{)~ '-
\
--' ~ -"
~APF.'\GlrE --.-;;: ~y-"
/ ._,.
~-'~
:.:..,..".:..,..::.;-....:..~:;::;:...;.:............~:,..::.;:;;..;:~......
Z!G
:J I i5
;r::<;;l
S-''''~
",,:,-::. ..,''',.::~,G:d:;~,:;;::::;~
EAST H.ut~~:+.:;;~.~~..:~:~:;:~~::;:~:;,:.::,.;.:..:.::~.:..::,..,..::;.;.:+~.., .-;:;-- - ----=r-
__ ______ I __ ~.__._
.--- -'- ----.-- --' ,--- '-'1--
,
(0-
~.
,c;:.o>r.O'
...-..,.....-.
I
l
,-
__.L_. .
__ O<-"'~_ ~-~ ~
" i
:.>-'-'"-
----~._~.-
BF.,\CH HAMf'TO;----..-
-- --_.--- --- --
-----.----------
........,
:.~;:.~
'::'0.
. "'. ~.~.
-I ~.'.-
- '0:
-'--_.~-
~~~~
j:~, -
7: c<
,>..TJ."";: '::';:Ef~;
~~~E" .
.,
li
ii..ii
GRAPHIC SCALE
f'!
~-
-
i
"''''
I
'"000
I
DRAFT
:'-,~..",:, "".-
---.-,
~"C"
. '-"."'''/...
.~,:::G:':
------ -._~
. ,/
,~:;. , "
.~""'L""'"
~--
( IN FEET )
inch '" 5280ft.
::-,,:. - ?tl
,/"".-.=_.?:.,,,
e
r
""""'''''''.'l>Im'f
u
1. aASE iol,/IP f>S COI.IPlLEO FROM A,UERO\N DIGITAl. CARTOCRAPHY. INC.
QI.JAOfWlGl!S F1L!S or ll.O,y 28.1996. 'THE TOWN 01' EAST HAMPTON
PI".ONNNGOEPllSlTl.lrNT......"s~SEDSEPTE/.IBER'9928YR.R.P_ANO
surFCU<COUNTY~PROPER:yTAXW.P-KEY_OFJU'lE1.1S7S
c
!
/
.'
.:l
....
........~~:;~~~i::.~......................
..; ~~: <co.- '.!..:~E<~ ~;:"
"-;--
.---.---:::;
B if
~ ;
r
~
e
P',
.,
/
'_.~ l' C<OO>'-.
t
r
L
MONTAtiK
BEACH
/
./
PROSPECT
HILL
,--,
;::.,;0-
....
~
U,,~
::""",,,,,"
<i~
,~
""",-' :=-
//
MONTAUK.
POI!\.J
:r
...~
--~'"
~"'-
-j
,,~C:'3_
--_.--:..:....~-
," -I ~:~S~ I
",
..
,
_.._--~
>4C~
'-,/
--,L--
i 1,64-8 t,./
8,.959 ;
DlTC,'H
PLAIN::;
/
-- "-- ~.----
" , "-'"t', : " /- ~
r"
..
~,'
/
_.::-:.';!~'"2...
,:~':.;:;~~.~.
~"'::';0-~
'x/
- 'x..
flREPI.~('t
",,'
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
...,r~.
...
~
4t
....
v
1996 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
'1."';':
...c::.<cr.~
/ :'
L. K. McLEAN
February 1997
ASSOCIATES, P .C.
L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16
Exhibit No.
[
":;/
8-2
~
//
~-
KEY
COUNT STATION No.
AND ACTUA.I. VOUJMES
--"':>-.-i-: ,"
....;,----::~::';, "0..'
.::.;~."',~- .
:0.000
10.000
DESCRIPTION
ACTUAl VOLUME (SlIMMER - PE..\K)
-ADJt:STED VOLUME AT 77%
(NOr-; SUMMER - OFF PEAK)
COUNT STATIOK No.
COUl>';1 STATION LOCATION
SYMBOL
DESCRlPTION
SYMBOL
r"
L
t
1.180
909
(i)
0-2.500
1- #
~A,
'V.
(j)
lC:,;:f;.:,-,,:,_c:.C;:~
15,000+
r
~~
t
29,007
22,335
- - ':-'~:::-
\:
,:
1
-.
-. 'fa~~
~~~...,.. ~
~-;.\~~
-. '. ."0.-<"
"i ;'9
8f:8. .-. '
~._-...,.,~
.. p-;.-
-
-~
::-'-_~,o
.,.
",-;:;..--
----
~~ ~'_:.~.
~/,/
.r- .-"'--.
---',
, '~.
'I
~
~.
/'....
'-?S:..
--
__,-,r
r
f..,
e-
L;
o
~
[ :J
~
e;::;
1.554
1.197
N.,PF.AGlIE
-~
~~....
---
_...~
LA"'D
'..,:-?
1C.89~
r
!i;~:.F,('_ ~ tC~2~~;:'
8.388
.
.
-''--.- ----
t~i
:"-;:
~; ~ ~
17,638
13,581
~. 2,~{-3 ;
-~
~~......:
i
1
- I
-- -', I
-/~--- >---- ---"'"
:~.~\~ 21,772
F\,; 16.764
-~--'
----::-..-;'~ ~''':
.;--- 'f
~..- ",,"
~
",'11~""
-"--
.....,...,.0<
.::: (;,
2,178
1.677
BEArH fUJ,IPror-i
~
E~~ a~UN BEACH
~-"- ---.----
,.1_'J'~'7:': ::i:::E..:.c;
I _
'---:;:
__+__n__
.
A general idea of traffic volume variation during a summer week can be obtained by examining
. traffic data from three machine count stations along Route 27. Daily data obtained at the
following locations was tabulated and graphed, by direction of travel, on Exhibits 8-3 through
8-8:
.
Location Direction Peak Day Peak
Number Location of Travel of Week Hour
5 Near Southampton Eastbound Friday 4-5 PM
. Town Line Westbound Sunday 7-8 PM
26 East of East Hampton Eastbound Saturday 12-1 PM
Village Westbound Sunday 4-5 PM, 7-8 PM
. 4 Montauk Eastbound Saturday 12-1 PM, 1-2 PM
Westbound Sunday 4-5 PM
The data graphically illustrates the extent of weekend travel to and from the Town in the
.
summer season. This travel pattern of eastbound travel to the Town from Long Island, New
York City and other points in the Northeast United States on Fridays and Saturdays, with return
trips on Sundays and Mondays, recurs every weekend. Eastbound travel generally occurs on
.
Friday afternoons and evenings, and Saturday mornings and afternoons. Return trips to the west
occur on Sunday afternoons and evenings, and Monday mornings.
.
At 18 of the 30 locations where machine count data was obtained, similar data was obtained in
the summer of 1982, as an up-date to data collected in 1965 for the previous Transportation
.
Plan. Comparisons of 1965, 1982, and 1996 data appear on Table 8-1 and Exhibit 8-9.
.
8-3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 8-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
1965, 1982 AND 1996 ADT COMPARISONS
1965 1m 1996 PERCENT PERCENT
ROADWAY FROM TO SUMMER SUMMER SUMMER INCREASE INCREASE
ADT ADT ADT 1965-1982 1965-1996
. MONTAUK HWY (NYS 27) TOWN LINE WEST E. HAMPTON V1LL LINE WEST 8,994 19,700 29,007 119% 2230/.
MONTAUK HWY (NYS 27) E. HAMPTON V1LL LINE EAST INDIAN WELL PLAIN HWY 7,979 17,600 21,772 121% 173%
MONTAUK HWY (NYS 27) NAPEAGUE MEADOW RD MONTAUK VILLAGE 3,501 7,777 10,894 122% 211%
S.H./E.H. TPKE (NYS 114) SWAMPRD SAG HARBOR VILLAGE 2,992 4,594 11,801 54% 294%
STEPHEN HANDS PATH MONTAUK HWY (NYS 27) CEDAR ST 313 2,787 5,909 790% 1788%
LONG LANE (CR 59) NEWTON LANE S.H.iE.H. TPKE (NYS 114) 600 1,932 3,704 222% 517%
CEDAR ST OW NORTHWEST RD NORTH MAIN ST 562 1,751 5,843 212% 940%
OW NORTHWEST RD CEDAR ST CEDAR POINT 6 577 914 9517% 15133%
SPRINGS FIREPLACE RD (CR41) HARBORRD HOG CREEK RD 2,223 6,216 8,811 180% 296%
ACABONACK RD TOWN LANE SPRINGS-AMAGANSETT RD 460 869 1,129 89% 145%
AMAGANSETT SPRINGS RD MONTAUK HWY (NYS 27) SPRINGS FIREPLACE RD 844 3,021 5,048 258% 498%
EDGEMERE STIFLAMINGO AVE MONTAUK HWY (NYS 27) WEST LAKE DR 3,496 9,259 11,648 165% 233%
HANDS CREEK RD CEDARST SAMMY'S BEACH 128 1,319 3,806 930% 2873%
OW MONTAUK HWY MONTAUK POINT ST. BLVD MONTAUK POINT ST. BLVD 1,827 3,932 4,777 115% 161%
SPRINGY BANKS RD HANDS CREEK RD THREE MILE HARBOR RD 551 2,071 3,409 276% 519%
TOWN LANE ACABONACK RD AMAGANSETT SPRINGS RD 527 1,630 3,440 209% 553%
PROMISED RD MONTAUKHWY LAZY POINT 725 907 1,554 25% 114",.
FURTHER LANE INDIAN WELL PLAIN HWY E. HAMPTON VILLAGE 922 2,200 3,402 139% 269%
TOTAL 36.650 88142 13 868 140 . 3./.
n?/1?J97 09:08 AM
ADTCOMP.WK3
I
50
',L
r--r-
o
1:00 AM 3:00 AM 5:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
.
~ 350
~
6
ro..300
o
o
~ 250
~
~ 200
~
500
450
400
150
100
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT No. 8-3
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No.4
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF FERN STREET)
DIRECTION: EASTBOUND
! il
' i
I
I i I ! i ! I I : I I! !
t H+-t I-I-j -1 i I rrtr i
: -~::t-r--~--+-r--, - ;---
I I ",I ! ' I i I I I' I I
I rT-riji-1 ,I ", l-+i---I~
+~---T---+---+----~~ '" - --+--t-+---
I I I ' I Ii. ,I I I
I t74 I -+----~- , --+
' /1/ I I ' i i + 'I d L
((IT! i-i-ii I-I-j. I ,'r:,.'il~
,ll i +-' I I I I I I I i
:--1' I I [I T--r--T---r I T I
I
I
!
,
i
I
,
ll:OOAM 1:00PM
TIME (HOURS)
3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 1l:00 PM
I --'-'DAILY AVG. VOLUME ----r
L PEAKDAYVOLUME(SATURDAYj I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT No. 8-4
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No.4
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF FERN STREET)
DIRECTION: WESTBOUND
500
I
T
I Ii; ! i I I !
I rt--+- I,-~-t- I I-
I ,,' !! il I I I il I
I ': I I I
1 i':- i I I : I ! I
t-t+ ! '~r +. I T-'!h-~
tl"/'l,,,_.t' -+-,:,' -L-! I I J--L~ iL-
',/11: I -I ! i I' I 'I
7 <~'--H ~ I I[! !'\"~, ~-
j",/ i I il I L '''''\l, I I
<i , ~-l.-- .f '
'//, II, i~ I U' : II I 1\\,,1 I
p' 'II II" I! i \ \ i
,.. I I I I ! i i I I "\1.1
/ ! ! Ii ' , I I ". i
I }-I {I II -II-Ill I i 11 i I III
5:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 11:00 PM
I
450
400
I
I
350
I
i
~ 300
i<< i
o
ci 250
Z
~
fool
~ 200
...
~
150
100
:f:1, ...
1:00 AM 3:00 AM
I ->-DAILY AVG, VOLUME
PEAK DAY VOLUME (BUNDA Y)
TIME (HOURS)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT No. 8-5
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No.5
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF TOWN LINE ROAD)
DIRECTION: EASTBOUND
I ,i!! j. i Ii!
I j,Jj rrl J II i ~
/ I ill 1----r-t!1 ......
I I' Iii I I i I i I I
! .,' I ! i! I I I : I"
/'--1' --~-)' i I-t-~+--- i
(i I I I I
t ,i I' "I, I
It'
111111
t+t++
i I ! i I
i I ! I I
1200
I
I
,
i
I
I
,
1000
i 800
\S
~ I I
0600 I i
Z i
;; I
~ I
..l
~ 400
~~
j
~,I
200
'" '0",
o
1:00 AM 3:00 AM
!
"
,d
~j
,
I,
i
-I : j
II ,I '
!
I
I ' I
, I
-+-1-
I I
: i
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
i-
I '
!
I
I
I
'.".,
I"
ti.~
I I
I I
I i
5:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 11:00 PM
...., 'DAILY AVG. VOLUME
PEAK DAY VOLUME (FRIDAY)
TIME (HOURS)
.
~ 800
~
~
o
o 600
Z
~
..
~
.,
..<
o
.. 400
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT No. 8-6
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No.5
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF TOWN LINE ROAD)
DIRECTION: WESTBOUND
1200
I
I
I I II !, I I I I I
: I i I I I i I
I I: I I 1'T'] I
l I /J,~~-rr~i, ~I'" "",,' Ii, ,I
i i i i! 1,\,1
i 't! I i-1--L- i I II"'"
II III! !~I I"~,
Ii! I 'i i
I f! I i I! I I I
, H-t'
t- I"~
i I! I"
: i I '#1 ! I ' 1"'\'11'
I I + _ I ',\,._
I I I + "\,'
, ii, i Ii""
,j I ,I I i Ij i i It-t-I I I i, I, '
I[ I +++t- ,-+-+.+- +1 i
i I I I I I Ii I I I I I I I i
Iii Iii! i
( i
II
I I ! .
,J. I I
1000
I
I
I
I
!
,
l
4-/
"
.f
,/
/l I
-,
/
,/
J' I
"1 I
200
""
',,!,
1"....-
o i
1:00 AM 3:00 AM 5:00 AM 7:00 AM
9:00 AM
1l:00 AM 1:00 PM
TIME (HOURS)
3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 1l:00 PM
"''''DAILY AVG. VOLUME
PEAK DAY VOLUME (SUNDAY)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT No. 8-7
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No. 26
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF SKIMHAMPTON ROAD)
DIRECTION: EASTBOUND
1000
, : I I I I I I
l! I i I I I j i i I :
-+--+- ~ I ,+----+ I i -t---j-----t---+------+
I ; I I. I I I ! ; I i I ! i
" I 'I I ,.! I ; I I ' I I : !.
I I - !i Ii ! i i I i I I
I_ri~ : --+- i I i +-+-+---- I i n_t--
I' :: I ~ I I I I I , I
I I I: i i J ! i I tl !
;;;-700 -I II' r-!. ,- ,1+--1 i'--T-' ~ i II-r-, --T--.
~ i I : : i I I ! I Iii i :
~... +- I Iii 1 -I .11 -ii i-I I J T
::!1 i ,I I ! i I I i I I I I
:s400, I -I '--t. --t---:---T. u'-i--nl-----+-I.-ilT-r--. I
~ : I I! I Iii i i i ! I I i i .
300 -+- --i-+-----!---+-'__t_ I i I +- I 1----1
I, I ' I ' I I ,; I I ' I
I I I I I I Ii:',: j I i I i I
I I I' I I I i
~', f I ! I I I I I : Iii I !
\, I~ ,,' ,I 1 I II' I, i! [
~1 I '" 'I I~' I f
100 \~""1 ,-^"" ---t--- i +---1 I I -r I ! ! ,
I I !: j ! I I ! ! I I I :
"---< I! ' 1 I i I
900
800
o
1:00 AM
3:00 AM
5:00 AM
7:00AM
9:00 AM
11:00 AM
1:00 PM
3:00 PM
5:00 PM
7:00 PM
9:00 PM
11:00 PM
'DAILY AVG, VOLUME l
PEAK DAY VOLUME (SATURDAY) I
TIME (HOURS)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT No. 8-8
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COUNT STATION No. 26
LOCATION: RT. 27 (EAST OF SKlMHAMPTON ROAD)
DIRECTION: WESTBOUND
1000
I !
,
900 I
,
I
800
i
700 I
~ I
'I}
llli
-<
U600
r-. i
0
gsoo
-
fol
~400 i
...l I
~ ~
300
I
200 I
I I
100 ........_"...
....,,.,...,.,.,
0
1:00 AM 3:00AM
! I ! I I i j ! I 'I I I : I I I
I I I I I i I I LI I
: ~-t----t i '. I-'----i- ! -+--1----, I !l' --
1++-+' ! 1 i I I i Iii I I I I i
~+---+----- I I--+- -----j- r ~ I I ---
! i 1 II. ii, i ,i i
'I I -i I'~"':' I 'I, : ii, I I
i +--t- I~-'/r -+--t-l-I~t-i--r--l-"", ,I. I t---i~
I t'~: I. I I I I ""-ri',,! j
I ! i--r---t----r- I I I ' _ "
,'_ ! I I I I I I , ! -1..... I
~/nl!l I ITI
---,,'- - - . -+--L-+-- I 1'--1 ' , I ,~
~,,- I Iii Ii' t i I i I I I',
/1 ,--r-I--+--~---+-+--+ I 4---
;' I! ! I' I i I : I I I I
/,- Iii I i I [ i I i
/- i -+-1--t--L-- i r~H-r--r---+-..:c,~!
/r I , I i J I I j I I I I I
1/ -1--1 I ---4--, I I I ! i' +---t--
, ~ ' I I i I I i Iii j I Ii'
5:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM ll:oo AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 11:00 PM
--'DAILY AVG. VOLUME I
PEAK DAY VOLUME (SUNDAY)
,
TIME (HOURS)
.,
u
GRAPHIC SCALE
-
I
111000
I
""""
I
~oo
DRAFT
r'
a..
.
('!
( IN FEET )
inch ;:. 5280ft.
(1,<)lF'RAtl..rm:
&.se: w.P I\S COIolPlLED rROM A.loIER'CAN D!CITAl CA.RTOGRAP~Y. INC
OU.l.DA.o1'lCLtS FILES Of WlY 28. 1996. M TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
Pl)INNING OEPART\olEN"TUAPS REIIISEO SEPTDoIBER HI92 BY IUV'. ~o
SUFFOLK COUNl'i RUl PROPERTY TAX UAP-I<EYIoIAP OF JUNE 1. 1975.
~
-~~ -
r
..
p~
--'
I'.
......
;l
./
.l
...
l.....
.....
--t... :~...:.t~w.......................
..........~~:}~::%:0'
~ .,.,~. ce
.-----
:;~
r'
""'~
.....,1'"""".::""'"
MONTAl;K BEACH
f'
r
i..
-.
-'"-
>,-
r
.~
','",~: '-",,~ B'
'"
~
nOI.I.ow:':t"s>A
fi'\
'1'1
~ V.,
~~ .
';1,
"
....,.,,;_.
~.,..
-"\~;-"
.
.':";~~'~~>
i"IREPI...\n
"".
[
.----/4
I ""~
: SAC,
, .
~RARBOH
i.......... /
. I
: 113'
:j sr
ii /;) ,p
li
:.
~,
:~;
t
f'O~..I)ER
tilL!.
..,.
.
...
"'<,
c
....
...
c
t
"-
r
"
119%
222%
,..
i...I
i:
\:
~
-"
'\~~\~--
'Z r~
~. "
,..-.. /"
27" :
11;Cr ,t~ --120%
269% '). 172%
..",.:
I
l
I
L__
BEACH H.t.\If'TOK -~----
L~
"
"
.-.;::
, "
.. '"
..r~
~---~ _._-~-_.
,-:';
~: '.~ c
. ~,
<'
,,~;:.-:,' ...,.,
,,'" .;:..;~':..",.
~, "
PROSPECT
RIll
"~
. .
''''"""," r
M.ONTAUK'
POINT
.-/
DITCH
PL,\lN~
",
..
_/
164%
233%
~--~
-,"""':"""
-.
~~--' ~.---.-
~'._:....- ','
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
1965, 1982, AND 1996 AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES COMPARISIONS
1. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C. Erhibit No.
8-9
February 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16
SYMBOL
KEY
DESCRIPTION
% I'ICREASE 1'1 SU\I~IER A.D.T.
005'; '198Z--.;s.---i965 ( ii' YEA:RST~--'
00% 11996 vs. 1965 (31 YEARS)
25:---~ COU"IT STATIO" No
I COuNT STATIO" LOCATION
.- -~--
<;.
.,:..-.:.-_'"
,"
4._~--._~.-
-:--/
~.-\PK\GFi:: '...:.
--'
LA!>.'!)
"""'J-':'
~
T/~
\38'1
'../. 6
',..'
"",f'~""
1
'.
,/
_:17__
v---"'.",..,.....
.----
~~~ fl~YPTON BEACH
-'-.-- ---,
--____._....L
1115% I--'~
161%
I
--r---'--
-~.";":..;.-;~:: ':>::,.:.:
.
.
Based on data at these locations, between 1965 and 1982, summer traffic on Route 27
experienced a growth of about 120 percent, or a little more than a doubling in magnitude. This
corresponds to an annual (simple) growth rate of7.1 percent per year. Between 1982 and 1996,
the average summer traffic growth was 81 percent overall, or 5.8 percent per year. When
taking the 31 year period between 1965 and 1996 as a whole, average summer traffic growth
was 202 percent, or 6.5 percent per year.
.
.
.
With three exceptions, average summer traffic volume growth at the other count locations was
higher than that on Route 27. Some roads experienced 31-year growth of 1000 percent or more;
it should be noted that 1965 volume on these roads were very low. Average growth rates,
"weighted" by the amount of traffic at each location, are shown at the bottom of Table 8-1. The
140 percent overall growth between 1965 and 1982 corresponds to an average annual growth of
8.2 percent; between 1965 and 1996 the 273 percent overall rate is equivalent to an annual rate
of 8.8 percent.
.
.
.
In contrast, the population of the unincorporated portion of the Town grew from 8,377 in 1970
to 13,742 in 1990, based on U.S. Census data. This 64 percent increase corresponds to an
average increase of 3.2 percent per year.
.
Turning movement traffic volumes were obtained at several intersections on Saturday afternoons
in August, where capacity was perceived to be a concern. Data previously collected in August
1985 at other intersections was expanded to 1996 by using a growth factor obtained after
.
8-4
.
..
l..
[
<2
1
.-'
423 1
,
~ ..
.,. ~.
.-
~
r
L
.
("
..
~
30
.
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
,-u
. EXISTING .
PEAK HOUR
~ VOLUMES -
-
'O4
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
.
~
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
~
20 --
~
...
~
... ~ ,.
1,212 .......
[
.
r,
L
74
AUGUST 29. 1996
12 PM TO 2 PM
r
,
r
L
~
/
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
AUGUST 29. 1996
12PNT02PM
-
/~~'7!~-
" .
r
..
, ::~~-~
FIREPLACE
,/~
.,.
!i
[
t
c
t
.
[
5~
t
\,
.!
i
-"
2. ~S
".- - -_._-~-
~l~
:;~ ?
r
U--
N
.C-
o
"
>
w
.-,1
, I
;: W
~
./
-::j""." ,..,.,,~
I
:
;
I
-.-
BEACH HAMPTO:oi
1
_.L._
~ .", :
".(:;;
".e.'.:
",,".
:~'>~.
'" .-:
.
~.'
/
.
,.:....~,_-::. 2;.--'
--~
-... <.
PRO>,f(SED lA."iD
-,":,...".
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
TING TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUME
(WEST SECTION)
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P .C.
February 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj_ No. 30-000-16
KEY
SYMBOL DtSCRIPTION
. INTERSECTION LOCATION
c;.o:.;: _
DRAFT
I
U
C-<
-0:
:>l
.,.,~~~
-,
-....--.
:\".~PEAGllE ..-:-:;: ,.~.:
(j.
...-/- .<;.:.~> )>;.:,:".
/
~----
~ ----"
I
--i-
_ "'..---
~_ST _ ~'lP10N BEACH .
, ('~r-f_";
"
leA
n
ioi
.
n
L.
"
..
'J
I 1
...
"
t
n
L
'"
!.
c
...
4t
c
.~
...
L
t
r
..'
1:
;::::.,:
r-
"-N'
.~
r'o
. :so
.....q
""
>
w
-.1
[ f5
~~
....
-
PROY!SED M~D
-'-.
--
r.Ji
~f-.-
...JP5<1:
_:::c
.......... ~
s.;XI
:;;;~:o
:::a!~ 0
!(/)z.
I-~~ :;~--
V
,/1,,,
1
~
--
'.''-'-._~ .-
--;--
/'
--..~...-"~~ """'." .=-
''''--,.,.-
''<,-. --
...~-~~::'~:;:,.
....,<~:'
---(."<7'-
/~_u
.. 0'-'___~--
,_.-
NAl'EAGlE
'-.~;;:''''-'''
.-,;.._=-,.
_z>--.._
J::A.~1 _~~1PT~~ BEACH
r. _' ,'~ :c_.
\
GRAPHIC SCALE
r:r-N~~A! M'\""
~,
4000 () :zooo 4000 10,
~
( IN FEET )
inch = 5280ft
""'"
I
''''''''
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
QA.SE......."ASCOlolP1u:DrF!Ot.lAloIERIC'-NDI(;lTALCARrOG~.INc
OIJAORANGLES f"H..rs OF" MAY 28. 1996, THE TOWN O~ tA$T _"TON
P!.AN!<(NGDEPARlIAO/Tt.lAPSR(VJSH> S[PlENaER 1992/$'fFUI.P.A."D
Sl,IFFOl..I<CDIJ"1'Y REAL PROPERlY TAX loW' _ KeY WlP OF JUNE 1, 197~
~
~,,~
~'"
-~ ~\
',,~
.
44----'
';:
/':::_"""r /~~//
22
"
1996
PROJECTED FROM
AUGUST 27, 1965
5:00 PM TO 5:30 PM
,0 . ,~
'" "~
..' 1>--
307 44 18
. "..
I>-
o ~
Z-
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
-4-.
I>-
,.
o "
.,
.
.
9
o
...,/
-'
'.
'"
"
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
--"'"
aO~
-.r,':;;i,'-
ldONTAI.'K BEACH
---'"------- ----- ~-- --...--'
?3 310
I
"
TING TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUME
(EAST SECTION)
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
February 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
KEY
SYMBOL I DESCRIPTION
I
. I INTERSECTION LOCATION
25
DRAFT
1996
PROJECTED FROM
A.UGUST 27, 1985
5:30 PM TO 6 PM
23 192 52
"" 0
~ "
.-J
1
... ~
~
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
EXISTING
PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
.,
I
t
.-
..
234 7
1996 - --'-'" '
PROJECTED FROM:
AUGUST 27. 1985
5;35 PM TO 5:55 PM
"
'v-'-.
,
~.,
PROSPECT
Hill
DITCH
PL..u~S
'",
...
----~
-
..-....
---..-- .,,,------...-
L.
.
~
7
'40NT.\t'K"..
POINT '
~
/
/
.~- -",:~-.:
j ~:!:..:.~:
.
.
examining 1996 machine count data. Peak: hour traffic data at these locations is shown on
Exhibits 8-lOA and 8-lOB.
8.3
HIGHWAY CAPACITY
.
.
Methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation
Research Board in 1994, was utilized to assess traffic conditions on major roadways within the
Town. Summer machine traffic volume counts were utilized in determining 1996 Levels of
Service on the roadways. The results are shown on Exhibit 8-11.
.
.
Level of Service is a measure of traffic congestion or a roadway or at an intersection, with "A"
being the best level, "E" being equal to the roadway's capacity and "F" being failure, or
conditions exceeding capacity. Most roadways shown on Exhibit 8-11 operate at Level of
Service "D" or worse on an average summer day. It should be noted that intersections along
these roadways with significant cross traffic will typically operate at worse levels than those for
roadway segments.
.
.
Because individua1levels of service can represent a broad range of traffic volumes, "+ and -"
levels were introduced to better refine the results.
.
An assessment of "off-season" traffic conditions on Route 27 was made from machine count data
collected in April 1997 . The results are shown on Table 8-1A. At the three locations analyzed,
daily totals of April represent between 67 percent and 33 percent of those in August, decreasing
.
8-5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 8-1A
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON mANSPORTATlON PLAN
COMPARISON OF SUMMER AND "OFF SEASON" LEVEL OF SERVICE ON ROUTE 27
% TRAFFIC
AUGUST 96 APRIL 97 APRIL/AUGUST
AVERAGE PEAK AVERAGE PEAK
DAILY HOUR DAILY HOUR AVERAGE PEAK
LOCATION TRAFFIC VOLUME L.O.S. TRAFFIC VOLUME L.O.S. DAY HOUR
Wainscott (No.5) 29,007 2,134 E- 19,315 1,793 E 67% 84%
Amagansett (No. 26) 21 ,772 1,733 E 11,746 1,124 D 54% 65%
Montauk (No.4) 9,075 1,309 D 3,001 383 C+ 33% 29%
NOTES:
1. All figures are two-way traffic (sum of both directions).
2. Level of Service (L.O.S.) is based on peak-hour traffic volumes.
RGD:efr
04/30/97
t:
il
1
-- \"~-
'I' :;;;:---
% 3 :s. (3
$~:-~
::......:~::
""3O:~o
o...:..:l....
::. ,:0
I "
Li
r
L
.
('t
'L.l
~
,.,
1
....
n
,
f
r ',,~-
~"'-
l..
If"
,.
t ,
"
~ ',,-
t
~
L
t
r
t
1996 E-
r
....
---
C
5
,;
~
/
/_ ,"" GR::H~C
~'
SCALE
3;_::'-:;1' '5:"'.:.':9 sou~::
""'"
,.",
I
~....-="
-,--'--
l ~ ~ F .- ~ - t
r7'c~
-;:-/ '----;' ~
DRAFT
( IN FEET )
inch = 5280rt
,',
.::-/
o>~...".
.::.2
""""'-'""
~
'....'<Dr'?'"
,~ .
1IAS(_.flSIXlIIPll.E:lFllCtll~DIClf....CAR\'~.'trIC
~FlI.ESOI'IW'2!. 1"6.T\oETOWNOFtAS'!~O~
~O(;>ARIltENT-SRC'o'lSEDSEFTnlEERl9li2S'1RJU>UlO
SlSTOU(COUIftYI'I:Ui.~T;lJI:IIo\P_ICEY_ClI'NOIE1.1975
~~,
~'::,i;:- .s...
........"'.,
<,;o.._"-::-~":'""'!=""'"
"-
....
(
,.
;:'
,j
PROSPECT ....-,
HllJ.
Y:ONTAT.:K>
POL....,.
'---'"
,..",\ ......
1.:,,'----_....
~
,~
:r:
u
E- r_~
~~
e
----
.~~~.
,-"
MONTA1..1K
BEACH
,/
,-
.
.- ./
,'-, ..;"_~S'~:'=
'f-
D11'<'8
PLAIN:':!
'-
~g,"
~
. ~O^'-
~~
-.
'---
-.-/
ATU'-~;';";:
~ ~------ -....----"
'-,~.:X
.
~
<;.'-, "
i'99Sl:-i.~~
'~:.'<5 SAY ~ ; --:--:[r->
,~_, Ji FIREPLACE
~ ~ './
.-~.'J/"""/ :,.:' ., ,<Il>
, . '
, '
r/
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
s:c,~ -';A=~'::;~ :0"
'--~ - ~
1/
:3:~}
:., --~ \~:~:.:: ~---
/---~,
~~ /~
."........- -"-:'~ /~~/
""-"-, :...' -::::::~"
/~'4.
"l
',",! .
DIJ
L. K. McLEAN
February 1997
lHARBO~ .'-
r" d
~~
:.
\
~
;,
t
.__<'r~
r_' ,-
""",,_,;i;;..~..../
.....~?s:''': (
ARTERIAL LEVEL OF SERVICE
- /
,.-
~~x
':/ -- ""-
.
Exhibit No.
ASSOCIATES, P.C.
LK,M,A. Proj, No, 30-000-16
,8-11
I
. ,
. "'.-
'r .:
::: < ' !
\
\
~ -'-".t~~./
~;;.<--:~~ ""~
~>-....~~,
,-~/
>
KEY KEY
SYMBOL I DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
~YEAR !1S96! 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE 'B'
~=" ""'"
, (BASED ON SUMMER H96(C1 LEVEL OF SERVICE 'C
'rJ~"' ~,~, '^u, 1'9951 D t
LEVEL OF SERVICE 'D'
:.v- COUNT STATION No. !IillIT] LEvEL OF SERVICE 'E'
"l... .. I COUNT STATION LOCATION IffiilI] LEVEL OF SERVICE 'F'
~----
.......; ~ 9?,s ~ 2-:
./ ----
//
r--,
u------- '..~
~
;f -'I
_~O/ .-..:
-0'.;' ..
//
--......--- 'c'/~
/,-/'
'~;:":::;'::..;E ~.
...
~---------'--
'"
,
,/ .
NAPEAGUE
,~~o.:'"
: ;'96
'-'...--/
'-y
,/'
":-,:';:;":;,,,: ..;,~"'50:;'
"~OC- _.---'
\ ,,,yO ..,- /,--;:;~
, , ...,
.,~
;;)
>
o
:r:'::!
u~
~ti:
e
---=
-....
LL'(D
._'
=--"
~,
PRomJ::D
...~~-
;'--
J
I
" I
, \.1
........
!, 9961:
~
~--
___~A, ...T _.V
I
,
. -"'--
"
I,
-$-"-
j BE::,CH RAJI.Pl'O'S'
!i,co'cl'.'
' ~ ~ '" ...
---"",,",
:'-S~~:.
1996 E-
I ):
"-!s~ i~s;N 'it\~
'::"~
;,'<-."
-- ~"~
E
~",,.-<,,,,...
~
EAST RAlIPTON B&\t"H
"~ --- -- --
~'~-;.' --- --
-- ... . ',~;:
,"""c,:.r,'!: C<::V'-.",
.
.
from the west (Wainscott) to the east (Montauk). In the peak hour, at the two westerly locations
(Wainscott and Amagansett), April traffic volumes represent higher percentages of August
traffic; at Wainscott, April peak hour volumes are 84 percent of those in August, and the
corresponding Level of Service "E" is close to that (E-) in August. In Amagansett, the "off-
season" Level of Service is "D", compared to "E" in August. The level of service in Montauk
deteriorates significantly between April and August, from "C+" to "D".
.
.
.
Capacity analysis was performed at those intersections where turning movement traffic volume
was obtained. These results appear on Table 8-2. Several locations exhibit unsatisfactory
Levels of Service; improvements to mitigate these conditions are discussed in Section 8.8.
.
8.4
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
.
Traffic accident data was obtained for the latest available three-year period, in order to identify
locations with significant numbers of traffic accidents. Data was obtained for calendar years
1992 through 1994 from the following sources:
o New York State Accident Surveillance System - Routes 27 and 114
o Suffolk County Department of Public Works - County Roads
o New York State Local Accident Surveillance System (CLASS) - Town and Village Roads
.
.
Table 8-3 is a summary of the 27 locations (intersections or roadway segments) with the highest
number of accidents in the three year period. It should be noted that only accidents involving
personal injury or more than $1,000 in property damage are described as "reportable" accidents,
.
8-6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 8-2
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PRELIMINARY CAPACITY ANALYSIS (SATURDAY)
LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSEC.
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION NOR111BOUND sounmoUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND DELAY
VE VO OVE va S . VO LOS 0 va LOS (9
~ 1 LT 13 E :",'I:.j''''' :@""",:'I::: LT 2
MONTAUKHWY(NYS 21)@W.LAKEDRIS.FERNST(CR11) I D m 0 m 3SO A m 313 A 3.1
RT 0 RT 199 B RT 16 RT 102
LT 4 LT 18 E LT 109 LT 42
MONTAUK HWY (NYS 21) @ N. EDGEMERE ST (Tho Circle) m 9 C m 44 m 411 A m 416 A 11.3
RT 46 RT 301 B RT 15 RT 12
LT 94 B LT 144 A
EDGEMERE AVE (CR49)@N.EDGEMEREST (Tho Cirdc) m 13 . m 11 . 3.1
RT 311 B RT 215 .
LT 54 C LT 9 F LT 32 A ,,'I,'1l:I' I:::t4itr: A
+ W..LAKEDR(CR 11)@FLAMINGOAVE(CR49) m SO m 66 m 249 . . "J'lt,:", ''''::m:'::':' . 4.9
,::::::::...:.'....:;::,::.
",,",JIT",", :::':'lu:r A RT 14 A RT 69 - RT 0 .
LT 14 LT I LT 22 LT 3
S.RIE.R 1PKE (NYS 114)@UNlONST (ViIlOfS.Harl>o<> m 311 C m 423 C m 13 A m 5 A 1.1
RT 1 RT 42 RT II RT 4
LT 33 LT '3 LT 31 LT 13
+ MONTAUKHWY (NYS 21)@CRANBERRYHOLERD m 21 F m II C m 611 A m 561 A 12.1
I::aT'I: :",j,4s\",' RT 42 RT 29 RT '42
LT 36 F LT 20
MONTAUK HWY (NYS 21)@DANIEL'S HOLE RD m m 1,212 B m 1,040 B 26.6
RT 30 C RT 30
LT 25 A LT 44
EDGEMERE ST@INDUSTRIALRD m 316 . m 310 . B 0.1
RT 13 - RT 22
LT 10 E ::LT ... ':':",)21:,.,::,: F LT 3 :",:1;1'::':'::' ",::~::::I
+ MONTAUKHWY (NYS 21)@O.MIIISECONDHOUSERD m 3 D m 16 D m 351 A m 501 A 143.8
:IH't::::::::: '::'jot::::I' B RT 0 B RT 3 RT 11
LT 62 LT 52 LT 26 LT 0
WEST LAKE DR@soumLAKEDRlSoumFAIRVlEW AVE m 234 B m 192 A m 16 A m 13 A 1.9
RT 1 RT 23 RT 52 RT 11
LT 0 LT 14 LT 0 LT 53
SECOND HOUSE RD @INDUSTRIALRDlNORmSHORE m 14 A m 4 A m 2 A m 10 A 2.2
RT 36 RT 10 RT 2 RT II
LEVEL OF SER E INTERSEC.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION NOR111BOUND SOunmoUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEVEL OF vi,
M V OVE VOL LOS OVE V S OVE VOL LOS SERVICE RATIO
LT 72 C LT 181 B
WooDS LANE (NYS 21) @MAINST(V11LOFE. HAMPTON) m 43 m 140 C B 0.110
",fRtf: :::':I':'01::"':: A RT 41 A
:':::'::::1;1\: i IfUft' LT 42 LT 25 LT 21
S.RfE.R 1PKE(NYS 114)@S1EP1IEN1IANDSPAm m 311 E m 240 B m 212 F m 198 C E 1.046
RT 40 RT ss ':::':'RTI} '::4%::':' RT 24
(LT). Left....
(1lI) . 11uu
(RT). R;glu Twn
(LOS) . Level of Scmcc
(VOL) - Volume (VchiclcslHour)
(.) _ Vohunc may be low due to an unofficial
Jane West oftltc intencction
(+) _ Hjgh accidcnllocation
HCASUM2.WK4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 8-3
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
IDGHACCIDENT LOCATION SUMMARY
DATA COLLECTED (1992 - 1994)
C F
L I
RA E P X P 0
R L EC A L A E E S V
E 0 PC F S R E R R D D 1 E
L C 01 U A N I F E K B E D R
A A RD N T I 0 C T A E 0 I S A E T
T T T TE N K A N 0 W L 0 A R D B C T N S A 0
E I 1 1 1 0 AN I N L J T I S 0 R T T N J Y R I W K T
LOCATIONS DO 9 9 9 T BT D G 0 I U P H D W I N U A H U G E V E C 1 M I I H
N 9 9 9 A L S A H W T R D E R E C 0 D I E R L N E C L A A P N E
S 2 3 4 L E Y T N Y Y 0 R Y T E W Y N R N E D H T E N L E G R
. 1 Monta ~ms P. Cross 24 7 6 4 17 11 8 3 0 0 '" 2 1 8 2 0 0 8 2 1 2 I 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
2 West Lake: Dr (CR 77 FlamiDoo Ave CR 49 1 7 7 15 15 11 3 0 0 11 5 0 14 2 0 0 14 1 0 2 la':. 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
3 MontaukH WcstofNcwtownLancl MM. 70S1712 6 5 5 2 12 4 2 2 0 0 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
4 S.H./E.H. T e S 114 MlinSt . OF SAG. HARBoR' 4 3 4 11 4 3 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 S F' l.coRd CR41~AbrahamsP.th 11 4 5 2 11 9 7 1 1 J 4 4 0 6 3 0 0 7 2 0 1 0 ''l' 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
. 6 Montauk H Ncwtown Lone 3 2 3 5 10 5 2 3 0 0 3 2 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
7 MontaukH W.ofWainscottNWRd MM 7051686 20 2 2 5 9 8 2 :,~} 0 0 :t::" 0 0 7 1 0 0 8 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1
8 S.H/E.H. TokclNYS l1~l~liton SI . OF SAG HARBOR 2 6 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 S.H.IE.H. Toke S 114 01; Hillside Jlriw 3 2 3 8 4 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 J 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
10 Abrahams Path tal Town Lane 2 4 2 8 7 7 0 0 0 :1::': 2 2 5 0 0 0 5 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
11 S...;n~ Fi_la.. Rd CR 41 t\m Croa Hwv' &:. Abraham Pith 5 0 7 1 8 6 6 0 0 0 :,~:,:, 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 I 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
12 MontaukHwv/W.ofW.inscottStoncRcl't.- MM 7OS1690 21 1 3 3 7 7 4 :)} 0 0 ,:):} 2 1 5 1 0 0 5 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
13 M....uk H j!oM.L Lone 7 7 1 7 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 Montauk Hwv (ill S.!L1E.H. Tn". S 114 3 3 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 Montauk Ilwv (ill Old Montauk Hi III 4 2 1 7 5 4 0 0 0 3 2 1 3 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
. 16 Cedar 8t ta S Hand. Path 4 1 2 7 6 3 2 1 0 2 4 3 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 1 i(,}. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
17 Snrin.. Fu.ola.. Rd rCR 4 n (ill Three MilclWbor Rd rCR 40\ 3 3 1 7 7 7 0 0 0 2 5 0 6 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
18 S",;n~ Fi_la.. Rd rCR4~on/FIovd 1 4 2 7 7 6 1 0 0 3 4 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 '3':': 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 Three Milclh_ ReI tCR 40 oak Hld.. 3 3 1 7 7 7 0 0 0 ':4:' 3 0 4 2 1 1 6 0 0 3"" 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
20 Montauk Jlwv <n. otwaS Rd M.M 7051688 7 1 2 3 6 5 5 0 0 0 l"$}: 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 :'("': 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 MOIluuk H W.iftlCOlt Stone ReI 12 1 3 2 6 5 5 0 0 0 .(" 1 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
22 Montauk Hands Path 1 1 4 6 6 6 0 0 0 :$: 1 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 3" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
23 MontaukHwv W.of '",Roadl MM7051716 3 0 3 6 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
24 MontaukH . of Abrahams PathlCroai Ilwv\ MM 7051745 1 3 1 2 6 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
25 Montauk Hwv (ill Bluff Roadl Cun...... Road 3 1 2 6 5 5 0 0 0 2 3 0 4 1 0 0 4 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
26 MontaukH WcIt Lake DrIS. Fern SI CR 4 2 0 6 5 5 0 0 0 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
27 S F;~I.cc Rd 4 \lRtwnWest oI;P 'I' 3 2 1 6 6 5 1 0 0 3 3 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 :j:,} 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 70 81 63 221 154 120 27 2 1 96 57 17 114 20 4 4 119 11 18 26 36 46 1 9 4 1 4 5 3 16
+ Signalized Intcncction
M,M. ~ Milo Marker
. May be potential Problem
ACCIDENTWK4
....".....,...... nD.4e AlA
.
.
i.e. those required by law to be reported. This fact explains the public perception that there are
many more accidents occurring at a particular location than statistics indicate. If 40 percent of
the total number of accidents are reported, actual accident totals would be generally 2-112 times
the number recorded.
.
.
It should be noted that the Suffolk County Department of Public Works has historically used a
total of five accidents per year to define a high accident location, in rural areas such as East
Hampton.
.
.
Although the accident totals shown in Table 8-3 are not equal to actual numbers of accidents,
the reported numbers were used in establishing a ranking of the locations, in order of decreasing
overall accident totals. On Table 8-3, accident totals by year are shown. In addition to
"reportable" accidents previously described, other accidents may have been reported, but details
describing these accidents were not recorded. For "reportable" accidents, data on time of day,
injuries, pavement condition, weather and type of accident are shown on Table 8-3. Exhibit 8-
12 is a map depicting the high accident locations.
.
.
.
At the 27 locations, accident data was analyzed to identify any trends, and observations were
made at each location in order to identify safety-related improvements which could be
implemented to reduce accident occurrences.
.
8-7
.
..
( "
~
r
L
.
r
u
r
L
.
~~
,
....
r
t -
r
l.
r
.~
[
or-.
"
[ .
-
t
[
t
r
I'
t
r
.....
eN
C
0
.J
-,;;
[ c
~
eo
~
GRAPHIC SCALE
4000 0 2QOO 4000
~
-
i
"""
I
""'''
I
DRAFT
i-2J
~
'::~::.-~ \~:~,..._.
8~':'~:": 'S;"':"C"~ 'S:.':'j'D
( IN FEET )
inch = 5280ft.
~'"""'
~-
r.FNFlb.'......rr
,.~-7"';
, BAStUAPASCOMFIl1:DFROMAIolERICJll;DlGITALCARTOGRAPMY.1NC
ouAllAANGLES rLES OF 1(.\1 28.199&. THE TOYlN OF' WT HAMF'"0"l
PLONNING XPART\ltNT ~ RE'OlSt:D SEPTDEER 1992 BY R_R.P_ AND
SUFFOlJ(COUP<lTYREAlPlWf'ERT'iTMIW'-KEY~OFJUNE1,1975.
8 ~!
!~
- ,
...l
/
,.... "<,',
"1,.'-
/-; 8 .-
- ./
"8 ....
'-- l
. . ;f.JfiJ,~---_/-
~l, s~;_: "i..~:;
::"";:>~
.,c-..::,
PROSPECT
Hill
..-'
.'
/'
-.
. -
-------.......
MONTAUK\
pOI;..;r .
"
....~
.....~~""'"
MONTAL;K
~.
~EACH
DITCH
PL\I~S
'",
..
-_/
/'
'-'~~';;;,~:,,"
115'--l 7 ~i
\~~
.~-
-~
"
-".-.-'
."-'--- '--,~-'-- -----
~~'"'~I,.i:" :;(E~",
"~',- ~
" "0.
'j.
FIREPL~(,E
",,'
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C. Exhibit No.
8-12
February 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16
.~;.
__---~_~r' ""''':_.
'-'~".<;.,,~.
'.~.
, $'--
.':
.
'~2'~/
'~
~l
-'.,.,~~
.. . "i'-'~,::;: M:'..!.: hAP!?:]?
~
.
KEY
KEY
SYMBOL I DESCRIPTION
,
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
~-,
<!!_).
NEW YORK STATE ROAD
(NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
FROM 1992 THROUGH 1994)
LOCATION No_
lo SIGNAUZED
NTERSECTIONS)
..
HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS
~
( # )
\':J
COUNTY AMD LOCAL ROAD
(NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
FROM 1992 THROUGH 1994)
~
~
j,
,:
,
\,. ~~
'..,',
~.
--;-;:-~ ---
~3\~3
~~~,
~ ..
\.:',::'::>:,:;:;: Sr'.
~
-:;-'5...-~-'~---_
. --
.)J -,'
.~ "
j
~-".:/-
,'~ --~,
I '-'~"
V
..----
NAPK-\(;lfE ,~,.,,"'
-.........
-""
ZI<:'
:::JI~
...-.!::::1
......,<
U:",
E-<:~ .....J7~~
::::I~
I
_L..u_
'::"'-i:.~,,~ -''''E
.y "
. .
...-'" .
PROMfsED lA.'iD
<.~
.r------.. !,.j,';':=:A.C, H;"2:>~
~""".-'
Y'-,
124
~
_ ;.~ ,__I ~ "
-.--,-,--. -- -- "-
BEACH HAYrios (25\
'-...
.
..L-.__ .___
.......,".,..'.......
,,~
-..--
- -~. ,----
~~~
~l ~
i;: ,~
(/......
_______.___nL__
\t~\
-~._---.
--------
E.-\ST H:~lIPTON StACH
------ ------ ----..-
",'--""'''-
ATJ.",7:( .:::~;;
.
8.5
.
FUTURE CAPACITY AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Few highway projects are planned in the Town of East Hampton in the next five years. Projects
planned by the New York State Department of Transportation include:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
Construction (1997) of an eastbound left turn lane on Route 27 at the intersection with
Stephen Hands Path (pIN 0008.18)
Pavement rehabilitation with some safety improvements (1999) on Route 27 from the
Town of Southampton to Cranberry Hole Road (pIN 0058.92)
Pavement "armor coat" (1999) on Route 27 from Cranberry Hole Road to Montauk Point
(pIN 0058.96)
Improvement of vertical clearance on Route 114 (1998) beneath the Long Island Rail
Road overpass (pIN OTO 873). The current posted clearance is 11'-0".
o
o
o
8.6 OTHER HIGHWAY NEEDS
Additional data on roadway conditions in the Town was supplied by means of citizen input
obtained at the five Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings. Key concerns obtained at the
meetings can be summarized as follows:
Route 27
A.
Need for left turn lanes and other channelization:
Wainscott-Northwest Road in Wainscott (revise lane markings on northbound
approach)
Newtown Lane/North Main Street in the Village of East Hampton (eastbound left
8-8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
---,
. turn lane back-ups at North Main Street impact Newtown Lane intersection, also
westbound merging problems)
At post office and laundromat in Amagansett
At the east intersection of Old Montauk Highway in Montauk
The above locations Were mentioned at the meetings. Other appropriate locations
should be incorporated into NYSDOT's rehabilitation projects on Route 27. These
include the Town Hall and Town Hall Annex entrances, particularly in light of use of the
Town Hall parkil}g field as a shuttle bus stop as discussed in Section 5. In addition, the
following intersectional improvements should be made:
Route 27 at Old Montauk Highway (Amagansett):
Construct shoulder on Route 27 adjacent to channelizing island
Route 27 at Abraham's Landing Road (Amagansett):
Eliminate existing channelized roadways, construct conventional intersection.
Reverse flow on one-way aisle in railroad station parking area. Coordinate
improvements with the proposed Southampton-East Hampton bicycle path, which
will proceed westerly, adjacent to the LIRR right-of-way, from this point.
B.
Need to review passing zones (existing pavement markings):
Amagansett (Cranberry Hole Road - Surf Drive area)
Napeague (hotel/restaurant area)
Montauk (business district)
8-9
.
c.
.
.
D.
.
E.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excessive delays entering Route 27 from side roads/parking areas:
Wainscott Business District
Village of East Hampton Business District
Amagansett Business District
Speeding:
Wainscott Business District
Amagansett (from the Post Office to Napeague Lane)
Napeague (hotel/restaurant area)
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Concerns:
Crossing Route 27 in business areas -
* Wainscott
*
Village of East Hampton
Amagansett
*
F.
Emergency Services:
Response times are impacted by congestion on Route 27:
Springs
Amagansett
Montauk
Route 114
A.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety:
Need for construction of sidewalks to remove pedestrians from shoulder of road
8-10
.
.
B.
.
.
C.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Need to better delineate shoulder area to discourage vehicles from using shoulder
Speeding/Traffic Calming:
Need to reduce speeds, and extend distance for transitioning speeds approaching
Village of Sag Harbor from the south
Consider improvements near the old "toll gate" area to reduce speeds and "funnel"
traffic into Village of Sag Harbor
Alignment:
Improve horizontal and vertical alignment in the vicinity of Hillside Drive
County and Local Roads
A. Speeding:
Wainscott (on bypass routes such as Wainscott-Stone Road, Wainscott-Main
Street)
Amagansett (on bypass routes including Skimhampton Road, Further Lane and
Bluff Road)
Montauk (Old Montauk Highway, Flamingo Avenue, West Lake Drive)
Springs (Three Mile Harbor Road, Talmage Farm Lane, Springs-Fireplace Road,
Flaggy Hole Road, Fort Pond Boulevard, and near Maidstone Park)
Traffic Volumes on Bypass Roads:
Wainscott (significant truck traffic uses these routes)
Amagansett
Springs
B.
8-11
.
C.
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Concerns:
.
Wainscott (Wainscott Stone Road)
Amagansett (Further Lane)
Montauk (poor bicycle riding conditions on Old Montauk Highway, Old West
.
Lake Drive and East Lake Drive)
Springs (Gardiners Avenue, Fort Pond Boulevard, Springs-Fireplace Road, Three
.
Mile Harbor Road)
D.
Other Concerns:
These include specific intersections (alignment, sight distance) and drainage
.
problems
.
In addition to public input, most of the major roads in the Town were inventoried, on a cursory
basis, to obtain general geometric information, including number and width of travel lanes and
shoulders, speed limits, general alignment features, pavement and pavement marking conditions,
.
and existing traffic signs. The results of the observations, including suggestions for
improvements, appear on Table 8-4.
.
Other highway needs involve insufficient vertical clearances under bridges carrying the LIRR
over Town or Village of East Hampton roads. Existing posted clearances range from 9'-0" to
.
10'-2". These include the following locations:
.
o
o
o
o
Stephen Hands Path
Daniels Hole Road
North Main Street
Accabonac Road
8-12
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 8-4
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PRELIMINARY TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON ROADWAY SUMMARY, GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CONDmONS
Charactcristi.cs AI Conditiom S'
Horimota! Vertical P- W...un. S Limit
M M
; . M
n j 0
0 0 u
S r r n D P
t R 1 r r
r C C 0 . . 0
Number . u u L I ; ; b
oflAnoo Lon< Shoulder Speod ; r , . I n G F P G F P G F P G F P n 1
Roodwoy both W<dth Width Limit g v v v i 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . . -
Directions (FI') (FI') (MPlI) h . . . n u 0 i 0 0 i 0 0 i 0 0 i 0 g m
t . . I . . d r r d r r d r r d r r . .
Stone Rd (South Section) Two 11'.. I' 30 X X X X X X No Improve site dislancc for NBLT to go West on Town Lane.
Old Stone H~ {North Section' Two I~ None 30 X X X X X X No - rk-tavNorthanscctionofroad.
Ccdor S: ~:uth Sccti,,::~ Two 17 None 30 X X X X X X No ImJwve speed limit sign spaciDa en northern section and
Cedar 8t orth Section Two 17 Non. 30 X X X X X X No c:onsidc::r-.:..,;..... ofnorthc:m section.
Stephen Hands Path (South Section) Two 17 None .., X X X X X X Y.. Consider . project from Long Lane to Old Northwest RdlCedar 8t
Stephen Ihndr Poth (North Scolion) Two 17 None 3S X X X X X X No to improve ovcnll a1i~ sight distance to intenections and
cmr
Abrahams Land---;':;;;- Path Two 11' None 30 X X X X X X No silml md Jimitsi .
NYS 114(30MPHZonc) Two 12' A_S' 30 X X X X X X No CIn parle. in the IbouIder and stick out into travcllane.
Consider widl'!nirur sbo\Ilden.
NYS 114 tDead Mans Curve Two
Northwest Rd (Wainscott) Two 12' None 30 X X X X X X No Improve wuniIl8 .ip. speed limit sign. spacing and Southbound
.' ....diJtancolorailroldcrou~
Northwest Rd (Lead. to Cedar Pt Park) Two 17 None 30 X X X X X X No Improvo southbound ~ght _@OldNorthwcotRdond
linUt'
Old Northwest Rd Two 11' None 35145 X X X X X X No and meed limit s'
Swan Rd Two 11' None 30 X X X X X X No limit'
S Bonks Rd Two II' None 30 X X X X X X No
BluffRd Two 17 Non. 30 X X X X X X No ~ meed limit s'
AlbcNLon<lingRd Two I~ None 30 X X X X X X No Overlay Road in ccnjunGtiOll with minor widening at curves md
. . silml and ~ limit si .
Three Mil. Harbor Rd CR ~ ~~uth) Two 11' S .., X X X X X X No Improvo rpocd lUni' .ign rpocmg
Three Mil. Harbor Rd CR.., orth) Two II' I' 3S X X X X X X No
H C=k Rd Two ~ None 3S X X X X X X No limitsi .
FlamirnroAve Two 17 I~ .., X X X X X X No
Industrial Rd (Montauk' II' None 30 X X X X X X No Im..m", ...,,, Second House Rei and limit sr.;;;-snAcinl!'_
SpringrFircPbccRd.CR4~ ~':"") Two II' S' .., X X X X X X No ~derovcrloy,
SDrinRsFircPlaceRd.CR41 orthl Two II' I' 30 X X X X X X No Imnmve WIlI'IIinI:r si-.
East end of road near Old Stone Hwy hu soqlC bad curvcs thru
TownLanc Two I~ None 30 X X X X X X Y.. roll... tcmin. Overlay....~: dninJge problem.
. . s.imund limits" .
Old Montauk HWv Two 11' 7 30 X X X X X X No
WoodbiacRd Two 11' None 30 X X X X X X No limits'
Churoh Lon< Two 11' None 30 X X X None X X No limitsi ondiosta1' . center line.
GardnenAve Two 11' None 30 X X X X X X No limits' .
Fort Pond Blvd Two 17 None 30 X X X X X X No limitsilZl1snaciJur.
LmmLane.CR59 Two I~ . 4S X X X X X X No
Two Holes of Water Rd Two 11' None 30 X X X X X X No Improve sight distance ~ =ins Ho!I~ Road and improve
n"I'IRIQ7 nA.?A AU
ROADSUM.WK4
.
.
.
The restricted clearances are causing trucks to alter their desired delivery routes. Increasing the
clearances by lowering the highway profIle is desirable. Based on the existing roadway system,
it does not appear that these improvements will generate significant thru (or bypass) truck traffic
in existing residential areas. However, this conclusion should be confirmed before
improvements are made.
.
.
There are deficiencies on the bridge structure carrying Cranberry Hole Road over the LIRR.
These include structural settling of the bridge abutments. In addition, sight distance over the
bridge is restricted by the existing vertical curvature of the roadway and lane widths are narrow.
The LIRR intends to address the structural deficiencies. The Town Highway Department's
intention is to make limited roadway alignment improvements when structural construction
occurs.
.
.
8.7
"TRAFFIC CALMING"
.
Typically, the two traffic concerns on local roads most often cited by residents are the volume
and speed of through traffic. East Hampton residents share these concerns. Traffic volume
increases on local roads have generally outpaced traffic growth on Route 27 over the last 30
years, in many cases occurring because of summer congestion on Route 27 and other roads.
Much of this "bypass" traffic is exceeding local speed limits, as motorists attempt to ensure that
travelling on the usually longer bypass does not result in an increase in time over the shorter
congested route.
.
.
8-13
.
.
.
Included by residents among the safety concerns of quickly-moving traffic are the safety of
pedestrians and bicycles proceeding along these routes. Pedestrians can be removed from the
traveled way by providing safety paths (sidewalks); bicyclists (and skaters) are attempting to
share the pavement area with the vehicles.
.
.
Other municipalities around the United States have employed various measures to "caIrn" the
flow of traffic. "Calming" attempts to achieve a reduction in the speed of vehicles generally by
changing the width and visual appearance of the pavement area and the adjacent "street scene"
(e.g. sidewalk and landscaped area). The intent of "traffic calming" measures is to increase the
driver's attentiveness, resulting in reduced potential for traffic accidents, thereby increasing
traffic safety.
.
.
.
Numerous techniques have been used as traffic calming measures; however, only one of these
appear to have potential for significant use within the Town. Where there is sufficient existing
pavement width, use of the pavement can be re-apportioned in such a way that the travel lane
width is reduced and a shoulder is created. This is accomplished simply by installing appropriate
pavement markings without removing existing pavement. The narrower travel lane has the
potential to reduce speeds, and the shoulder can accommodate bicycle travel.
.
.
Several traffic calming measures were considered for use in the Town. Some of these measures
include:
.
o
Reduction in pavement width available for travel lanes. Motorists will generally reduce
8-14
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
speeds on narrower pavements. This can be accompanied by an increase in sidewalk
area, and additional landscaping to enhance the visual appearance of the road. The
installation of shoulders on a wide pavement area are also sometimes effective.
o
Reduction in speed limit. The effectiveness of this measure is minimal, if geometric
conditions on the road are such that a motorist feels he can travel safely at (or above) the
original posted speed limit. In addition, this measure requires additional police
enforcement.
o
Installation of geometric features, such as:
Chokers, a narrowing of the pavement at a particular location, usually at an
intersection or the middle of a block.
Traffic circles.
Median barriers.
Diverters, to restrict turns or specific directions of travel, at intersections.
Cul-de-sacs, to create dead-end streets.
Raised intersections, where the pavement in the intersection area is raised a few
inches above the normal level of the intersecting roads.
Rumble strips
Pavement undulations, such as speed humps.
Installation of stop signs on through roads to create "all way stop" intersections.
This measure is generally effective in reducing speeds for very short distances
8-15
.
.
near the intersection. Multiple installations along a roadway could be effective
in reducing the number of blatant speed violators; however, a diversion of traffic
to other, routes with less desirable conditions (geometric and social) could occur
as a result.
It would appear that, on those bypass routes subject to traffic increases, of all these measures,
reduction in the available pavement area upon which the motorist can travel may be the most-
effective measure for use in East Hampton, provided that there is enough pavement width to
safely accomplish this. This measure could create a shoulder area which can be utilized by
bicyclists and skaters and would require only installation of pavement markings on the existing
paved roadway.
.
.
.
.
A reduction in speed limit will be effective only if the new speed limit is reasonable, given the
roadway's geometric conditions.
.
Other measures, such as installation of all-way stop intersections and physical geometric features,
do not appear appropriate given the rural nature of the Town.
.
8.8
RECOMMENDATIONS
.
All highway improvements should be consistent with the following, in order to maintain the rural
character of the Town:
o
No new roads with potential for attracting "bypass" traffic should be constructed.
No additional through lanes should be constructed on existing roads.
.
o
8-16
.
.
.
o
o
No additional traffic signals should be installed.
Potential traffic growth on existing bypass routes should be minimized.
.
The Town should review the current designation of Federal Aid roadways as shown on Exhibit 8-
I, with the State and County. The designation should be revised to be consistent with existing
traffic volumes and the "function" of each roadway. The functional classifications include
arterials, collector and local roads. Local and minor collector roads are not normally eligible for
Federal aid.
.
.
.
As an initial stage, roads with annual average daily traffic volumes over 5,000 vehicles should be
considered for inclusion in the Federal-Aid system. This list can be refined following discussions
with the State, County and Town.
.
The Town should initiate projects to implement the improvements at High Accident Locations
shown in Table 8-5. While some of these improvements will result in increased intersectional
capacity, they are primarily safety-related.
.
.
Geometric improvements should be made at the intersection of Route 27 with North Main Street
in the Village of East Hampton; conceptual alternatives are shown in Exhibits 8-13 and 8-13A.
A less desirable alternative would be to reroute eastbound Route 27 traffic desitned for North
Main Street to the signalized Egypt Lane intersection to the east, a somewhat circutous route for
those vehicles.
.
8-17
.
..
1.-'
r
L
.
r!
[ .
~
I"
>
L
.
r
~
,.
..
r_
L
r
P'
r
L
,r.
~
[
.-,
.
w
c
t
[
t
r
i,:
.
r'
L
C
.
05/01/97 08:46 AM
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
TABLE 8-5
POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS AT HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS
LOCATIONS CAPACITYISAFETY DEFICIENCIES POTEN'I'IALIMPROVEMENTS/lU!.MAR
The lipl WIll iDotaI1od 5m. Theaooidcm data.-Jyzod-
+1 Montauk Hwy@ Abrabm. P.abICroa Hwy for 1992 to 1994. l1ll:n:f..... tbo iDt<ncolioD ohouJd be nviow<d
ata fUIure date to _ tbo impaolI oltbo tnftio oipl.
M_Hwy (West ofNewlownLane) Make The Cin:le (Eat) ONE WAY Soulbbouad aod NO LEFT
2 MM 7051712 TIJRN WOIlboood Ramct parkiDg at The CUele (West) OIl the
SoaIboicle ofMoalauk Hwy Weal oftbo mrer-boo.
3 S.ILIE.R Tpke (NYS 114) @MainSt Impnm: ~t;.,...:OIl and pavcmeat markinp. l::1i-...afl'!
(Village of Sag Harbor) Wcstboomd lJ-TIJRN at iDlenectioo.
Due to high podeatrian ~ tbo Soutbbooud Right Turn to 80 JnataIl aa cm:rlap SouthbouDd Right Tum IIII'OW to ___
+4 M....Iauk Hwy@ Newlown Lane: West is very difliculL cIuriDg Eastbouod Left Tam phase.
Realipmeat ofN. Main St to....wl WOIlboood mc:rg<: and
leasth<:n ,,-~_.
The curves in Mootauk Hwy and foliage.-riet light distan<:c to JnataIlligbling and Improve light _ at Eaat and West Gate.
S MIlIkHwy (W. ofWaim<:ott NW Rd) Eaat Gate and West Gate. 6 of the S rq>odabIe ...,idc:otl 0ClClIrI0d P..ible ....I;gr-n' ofMontaukHwy in vioinity of West Gate
MM 7051686 at aighL In 3 of8 reportable """idcats, vehicles loat_1 wbcn: _ may be awiJabloright ofway.
and went offtbo road.
S.ILIE.R Tpke(NYS 114)@UniooSt Thetewau a.....-;.I drop in__from 1993 (6 aocicIoals)
'6 (Villago of Sag Harbor) to 1994 (0 acoidc:otl). This would iadioato the aood to atudy Ibis
iDtcnec:li00 in the fuIun:.
The ........ on NYS 114 and foliage restrict light distance. ~ light distan<:c 0Jl Northoast ODd Northwat oomc:n.
7 S.R/E.R Tpke (NYS 114) &; Hillside Drive Hillsicle Avo bas a S% to 6% grade and 2 of the 4 rcportable ~ """'" 00 NYS 114 and improve gracIe ooHillsicle Avo.
accidc:otl have loa! oonlroJ, 0Jl _ pavomouI, soms clown the hill.
S Abrahams Path@ Town Laoc
The Eastbound ~ bas two Thru lanes but is atripod for one Make tbo E........md right Thru lane a Rigb1 Turn laao. .
'9 West Lake Dr (CR 77) @Flamingo Avo (CR 49) 1000 bc}oad the intcncolioo. ('h.......;'e the Northboood Right Tam.
Northbound Left Tum-171 VPH, WcstboomdLeftTum-I46VPR
10 spriDgsFirepi80cRd (CR41) (Btwn West Dr.l; Pad< PI) lmtall STOP sign and Ilop bar 00 West Dr.
11 Springs Fireplace Rd (CR 41)@ Cross Hwy Location 12 - 2 of the 6 reportable """idcnlswac Rear Ends. JnataIla Left Tum Jane at both Abnhams Path ODd Cross Hwy.
12 Springs Fircplaoc Rd (CR 41) (Btwn Cross Hwy.l; AI>raIwm Path) Location 13 - 4 of the S reportable aocicIoals..... Rear Ends. Poosibly realign SpriDp Fireplace Rd to raI.- 0IIIYlIturc.
13 SpriDgs Fireplaoc Rd (CR 41)@AbrahamsPath The curve 00 Springs Fireplace Rd rcatricls light distance..
A 1995 project iDotaI1od a Left Tum lano in vioinityoftbis locaticm.
14 MootaulcHwy (W. of Wainscott Stone Rd) The __dataaoalyzcd _for 1992 to 1994. TbcIcf..... the
MM 7051690 u.-;oo shOuld be RYicwod ata 1\dlIrC cIaIc to _the
impacts of the Left Tamlaoo.
ACC-LOC.WK4
..
L
r
L
.
('
~
...
-~
L
.
r,
....
r
,
L
r
.
r
i..
n
to
r
L.
.t:
c
,
.
Li
[
l
t
r
~
.
[
r'
'l
.
n'\/0l/Q7 OR'4'; AM
. A 1994 project imtaUcd Left Tum 11III RiJbt Tum _ '" Ibo
+15 Moauuk Hwy@EgyptLone Egypt Lone NorlbboomdllJ'lXOllClL Tho ___ data.wyzcd
was f<<l992 '" 1994. Tborcfon:, tbo :..r....-Ai..u....w be
nMcwcd ot. fUbn dote '" _Ibo impacIa oflbo ......._.-.t>.
MooIauk Hwy Eat oflbo intcncoti...... be IIripcd Co<.1hru Jmc
16 M_Hwy@S.RIE.KTpkc(NYS114) 11III. Right Tum I-. Conoid<<.-iDs l<< roed '" Ibo
. SouIh <<makiug it ONE WAY S~ "....
NortbbouDd Risbt Tum' 302 VPH In 1985 NYS no _.' -t.dthatlbo~Icp~ONEWAY;
"17 MODlIUk Hwy@ Old Moatauk Highway (Eatt) WatboundLeft Tum - 283 VPH thD obouId be -.ida-cd. H cxistiD8 ~ is ntamod Ibo
SouthbouocI Left Tum. In VPH sipias om be impnwecI. Install Left Tum __... Moatauk. Hwy.
18 Cedar St@ StcpIK:a Hauda Path Install STOP AHEAD sip... StcpIK:a HaDdo Path.
19 SpriDp Fin:p~ Rd (CR 41)@'fbr=MileHarbo<ReI(CR4O) c-ida- moving tbo imcncctiOll '" tbo North wIIich could oJso
CI'CIte a '"grcca. ..... at Ihia location.
20 Spriup Fin:p_ ReI (CR 41)@Jacboa/Floyd '-""" sisoiog.
21 'fbr= Mile Harbo< Rd (CR 40) @ SoU Hides
MoaIouk Hwy (E. ofWainoooll NW Rd) A 1995 project imtaUcd . Left Tum lax ot this lo-hoo. !be
22 MM 7051688 -m.ot data aaaIyzcd was for 1992 '" 1994. Tborcf...1hc
1_ obouId be mri_ '" _Ibo impacIa oflbo ;.....v.. to
4 oflbo 5 reportable _ CIII be _ '" _cl.. c-ida- cxIaDi... oflbo .....,;",'0111 Lcft Tum Jmc that cads Wcot of
23 M_ Hwy@ WaimcoIl Stooc ReI tnYdias Eaot or Wcot... MODlIUk Hwy makiag Lcft Tums. 2 wr:rc the ~ ecti'Dll thru the int- .:-.
Rcor End aociclcab waitins in lraflic 11III2 wr:rc Lcft Tum aocidcalJ.
4 ofthc 5 reportable....daltI .... be aaribotcd '" wbicl.. NYS baa projcd that will be maJllliftg. J;"..........wfLcft: Tumon
24 MOIItoukHwy@StcpbcnHoodsPath trawling Eaot ... Moatauk Hwy makiag Lcft Turns. 3 were M_Hwy. Comiclcr RcaligDlllClllofMo<auk Hwy "'_
Rcor EncI aocidads. woitiDg in ~c 11III1 _ LT aocidcaIJ. _.
Sight cIistancc is.-iotcd <b: "'.....-.. OIl Montauk Hwy
2S M_ Hwy (W. ofGcorgica Road) 2 ofthc 3 reportable oociclcats were liar End oocidcDts liar End...idcaIJ may be due '" traflic coagcotioa created &om
MM 7051716 EuIboond.. M_ Hwy. tbo signal at Woods Lone.
26 MODlIUk Hwy (W. of Abnbmm PlIlhICroa Hwy) Improve sight diltaDoc II HrJy Lone.
MM 7051745 SEE REMARKS FORLOCAllON # I
"........ICIl.d\ Tum. 31 VPH Rcalip BIufl"ReI 11III Cnnbcny Rd 11III imtaU Left Tum _ 011
"27 MCXIlIIIk Hwy@Blu1rRoadI Cranberry Road WatboundLeftTum-13VPH Moatauk Hwy. Comid<< cI>-';.;ng Northbouad Right Tums '"
NortbbouDdRightTum-145 VPH go Eat.
"...""'-"1 Left T_. 208 VPH Install &ctl>o<md Left Tum...... Install. YIELD... ot Ibo
"28 McmIaukHwy@WcotLokcDrIS.FernSt(CR 77) Southboond Left Tum. 73 VPH Watbound Right Tum North mc<gc. Inwsligotc ""_1;7";""
impr<w=cnts OIl (CR 77).
+ Signalized 1ntcnc:cti0ll
MM - Milo Marker
"Turning M_t CoImt
VPH - Vchicl.. per Hour
ACC-LOC.WK4
.
~RIGHT TURN LANE
ki
.
'It,
--"
.ry:'H'. ',"
~'No. 8-13A
~c::::1 ::t>;
CQNCEPTUAE., NORTH MAt-!$T.
,~ ALTERNATIVE
'n~TATION PLAN,lI1OATE'
TOWN OF EAST HAll'TbN
~~ NEWYGIC
L.K. IotcUAN ASllOQA1ES,PA,
~ cae.LDKi EHGr&RS .. .' '{
<437..~0CUffR'rRCljM).~~'l'QIlIt;o
;.1Iln'. UOIAPrcij. ~:'jj<
, "i'~.~'''".,'';;V!c
.
.
~
'~
'"
~
z.
,
~,'
("
~
l'<',
.
.
..
.
.
.
!I,
~.
",\ifIf#
',,' 7"~' \ ,"
\' ,
.....~. f '
~RAFFIC
yO )
~,'.11\
J'i;;'~~~c~~;' ~
..
.
'"
;:
q
<
~
~
~.
REMOVE PAVEMENT -
CREATE .GREEN AREA.
SIGNAL WITH TWO PHASES:
~ ,~
( -/. \. \
\ ..c.--: ~ >...-]
~\~
~~
~~,
r~ (-r
~
GRAPHIC SCALE
BG : 40 50
__-_- I
{ I~ FEET )
: ;neh '" 80 ft.
<60
.
COORDINATED WrTH TRAFFIC SI~AL AT NY 27iNEWTOWN LA
.
.
County and Town roads should be improved as indicated in Table 8-4. Shoulders and safety
paths should be constructed where appropriate. Where sufficient pavement width exists, a
reduction of the width of travel lanes can help to "calm" traffic flow, while creating shoulder
areas. This technique may be particularly useful in minimizing bypass use of local roads.
.
.
Improvements to the alignment of local roads should be safety-related, and not meant to attract
additional traffic. Installation of left- and right-turn lanes at intersections should be implemented
where appropriate. Further study is needed to define specific projects.
.
.
Improvements in vertical clearances of roadways beneath the LIRR should be accomplished at
Stephen Hands Path, Daniels Hole Road, North Main Street and Accabonac Road. The latter
two bridges are located in the Village of East Hampton.
.
.
The future reconditioning and preservation project along Route 27 should include construction of
left turn lanes. The State should evaluate both the need for alignment improvements on Route
114 near Hillside Drive, and speed zone transitions entering the Village of Sag Harbor from the
south.
.
.
Evaluation of existing passing zones on Routes 27 and 114 should be undertaken as soon as
possible.
8-18
.
.
9.0
"DOWNTOWN" AREAS
.
Several major business districts, or "downtown" areas, are included within the scope of this
.
study. These include the following:
Area
Maior Roadways
Other Modes of
Travel Servin!! Area
.
Wainscott
Route 27
Town Airport, Bus
East Hampton (Village)
Route 27, Newtown Lane,
North Main Street
Rail, Bus, Taxi
.
Amagansett
Route 27
Rail, Bus
Montauk
Route 27, Edgemere Street
(CR 49)
Rail, Bus, Taxi
.
Sag Harbor (portion of
Village within Town)
Route 114
Bus
9.1
MOBll.ITY
.
During the summer season, the influx of traffic on the State roadways (Route 27, Route 114)
serving these areas results in traffic congestion, which reaches its worst conditions during the
following time periods:
.
o Friday evenings
o Saturday mornings, afternoons and evenings
.
o
Sunday afternoons and evenings
In addition, congestion can occur on weekdays, when weather conditions are not conducive for
beach-goers.
.
9-1
.
.
.
Traffic congestion has significantly limited the ability of autos, trucks, buses, taxis and
emergency vehicles to travel to each of these areas, and to travel "downtown" area roads as
well. Congestion on these roadways impairs the ability of bicyclists and pedestrians to circulate
freely within these areas.
.
9.2 PARKING
.
In each of these areas, on-street parking exists on State roadways in the heart of the downtown
business district. Typically, on-street spaces are occupied first; then off-street parking areas,
including those behind stores are utilized. This is typical of conditions occurring on weekends
and "bad weather" weekdays in East Hampton, Amagansett and Montauk. Although on-street
parking on Route 27 occurs in Wainscott, it is not as prevalent as in the other areas.
.
.
.
Parking conditions in the Village of East Hampton are particularly constrained. A significant
amount of parking activity occurs in the "off-season". For example, observations made on a
mid-April weekday in the Reutershan parking field (north of Route 27 and west of Newtown
Lane), indicate that the field was over 70 percent utilized.
.
.
Parking time restrictions vary in the Village. On Railroad Avenue, in the vicinity of the Long
Island Rail Road station, 15 and 30 minute, one hour and seven day restrictions exist. On-street
parking is generally restricted to one hour duration in the heart of the Village. Off-street
parking is generally restricted to two hours duration; with the exception of the Lumber Lane
parking area. This parking area is sub-divided, with the southerly lot carrying a restriction of
.
9-2
.
.
.
24 hours, and the northerly portion, 14 days. The northerly portion is popular among LIRR
commuters, who apparently utilize the lot for long-term parking prior to boarding the train.
.
It is not unusual for on-street spaces on Route 27 to be fully occupied to a point west of David's
Lane during peak: periods. Similar conditions exist on Newtown Lane and side roads to both
Route 27 and Newtown Lane. Spaces in the lot near the A&P, northwest of the Route
27/Newtown Lane intersection, are unavailable as well. Village enforcement agents are diligent
in marking tires of parked cars in an attempt to strictly enforce parking restrictions to maximize
parking availability.
.
.
.
9.3 PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL
As stated previously, congestion on main downtown roads, particularly in the Village of East
Hampton, result in difficulties in pedestrians' ability to cross roadways when travelling to
downtown businesses, and to and from parking areas. In East Hampton Village, there are
pedestrian crossing signals at the Route 27/Newtown Lane intersection. Significant volumes of
pedestrians crossing these roads inhibit the movement of turning vehicles, which must yield to
pedestrians, causing queues of turning vehicles. Marked "mid-block" crosswalks exist at several
locations in the downtown area on Route 27 and Newtown Lane, and some of these are
supplemented with signs advising motorists to yield to crossing pedestrians.
.
.
.
Similarly, traffic flow on Route 27 in the business districts of Wainscott, Amagansett and
Montauk inhibits the ability of pedestrians to cross the road. There are no traffic signals in these
.
9-3
.
.
hamlets. However, designated crosswalks exist on Route 27.
.
.
9.4 NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
In the Village of East Hampton, parking conditions in the peak summer period have reached a
critical stage. Daily parking fees for non-resident vehicles parking for more than a day in the
Lumber Lane field have been proposed. This controversial proposal was developed in order to
make more spaces available for shoppers.
.
.
The Village has, over the years, spent considerable funds in the development of parking in the
business area. As there is little space available for parking expansion, management of parking
demand in the Village has become essential. Some tactics to manage parking demand are
described in Section 12.2. These techniques are applicable in other areas where summer parking
shortages occur, such as Amagansett.
.
.
9.5
RECOMMENDATIONS
.
Due to limited space to provide additional parking spaces in the core of the Village of East
Hampton, establishment of remote parking fields, or "fringe" parking, would appear to be a
promising technique to manage parking demand. Fringe lots could be constructed, or they could
be established within existing, under-utilized parking areas. This technique is desirable in other
areas of the Town, such as Amagansett, where parking is constrained.
.
.
9-4
.
.
.
It is imperative that transportation be provided from these lots to business areas. Shuttle bus
service can readily be established from pick-up points in these areas to "downtown" business
districts. Fringe parking can alleviate traffic congestion in these districts by reducing the
number of vehicles circulating the area in search of parking spaces.
.
.
Fringe parking should be established at the following locations:
o In the vicinity of the Town's airport in Wainscott
o At Town Hall
o
In the Amagansett area, possibly near the railroad station, or by expansion of the existing
municipal parking area in the center of the business district.
.
.
In conjunction with establishment of these parking areas, shuttle bus service should be instituted
in peak periods. The results of the trial summer shuttle service should be reviewed to determine
passenger reaction, predict ridership, and prioritize establishment of these parking areas.
.
.
Pedestrian safety is a potential problem in "downtown" districts, as well as in residential areas.
In business areas such as East Hampton Village, pedestrians compete with vehicles, both at
intersections and at mid-block locations. Crossing Route 27 without use of pedestrian signals,
as provided at a signalized intersection, can be very difficult. Consideration should be given to
installation of traffic signals at mid-block locations with high pedestrian crossing activity.
.
.
9-5
.
.
.
Along Town collector roads in residential aras, the lack of sidewalks or "safety paths" results
in pedestrian traffic utilizing the roadway pavement. In conjunction with the recommended
annual highway program to improve Town roads, construction of sidewalks where appropriate
should occur.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9-6
.
.
10.0 BICYCLES
.
.
Bicycle use is becoming increasingly important on Long Island, both for recreational use and
as a means to commute to work in favorable weather conditions. In the Town of East Hampton,
recreational bicycle use is widespread in the peak tourist season, among visitors and residents
alike. Long Island bicycle organizations frequently hold weekend "tours" on Eastern Long
Island.
.
.
10.1 CURRENT AND PLANNED BICYCLE FACILITIES
Means of accommodating bicycles can be described as follows:
Bicycle lane - A portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, pavement markings
and signing for the preferential use of bicyclists.
Bicycle path - A path that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space
or barrier and may be in the highway right-of-way or an independent right-of-way.
Bicycle route - A system or network of roads, streets, paths or ways that are open to bicycle
travel and that have been designated by the jurisdiction(s) having authority with appropriate
directional and informational route markers (with or without a specific bicycle route number).
Established bicycle routes should provide for continuous routing between logical termini.
Shared roadway - A roadway which mayor may not be designated and marked as a bicycle
route but which is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel and upon which no bicycle lane
is designated. Examples may include roads with wide curb lanes and roads with shoulders.
.
.
.
.
.
10-1
.
.
.
Shown on Exhibit 10-1 are proposed bicycle routes in the Towns, as prepared by the Group for
the South Fork. The State Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the Towns of East
Hampton and Southampton, will establish a major east-west bicycle route through portions of
the two Towns. The route will feature a dedicated bicycle path adjacent to the Long Island Rail
Road right-of-way in both Towns.
.
.
The remainder of the routes shown on Exhibit 10-1 are a "wish list" for the establishment of
bicycle facilities in the Town. These would include bicycle lanes, paths and routes as well as
shared roadways.
.
.
10.2 NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
Prior to implementing the proposed facilities identified in Exhibit 10-1, review of existing road
conditions is required. This will ensure that pavement widths are appropriate to accommodate
bicycle routes and lanes, and that proper signs are erected to alert motorists to the presence of
bicyclists. It may be desirable to widen roadways to construct shoulderlbike lanes on these
roads.
.
.
It is important to instruct young riders on the "rules of the road" for bicycling; this should be
a formal part of elementary and junior high school cirriculum.
.
More bicycle racks are needed at beaches, shopping areas and train stations.
.
10-2
.
.,
u
I"
L
:.
("
...
S
1>.
iii.
.,
,
t
r
...
r
,.
[
r>
~
[
/
j' 1
U t
C J
i,
.
L.
r
t
r
~
e-
C
'"
w
"""'"
Iii
~
/'
! :'
"""-
;l
//
~l.
...........
. r......~~lltrt:::............~.
.'
;."
~
"'-
: ,
. .
:: SM,
!llAIUl<JH
r'"
11
:i
~
:l.
t
i'
,:
,
-"
~ '
';;"
\\.~~~---
s :3
~ .,
GRAPHIC SCALE
".. .~' ;~~""_ 's<
-
i
~oo
""'"
I
16000
I
DRAFT
MONTAUK
PO];..j Ji..
( IN FEET )
1 i.nch = 5280ft.
...--------
/
/:n..~.., 1O{;1';
~..,-=:.:::.-
e.o&MAPASCoYPII..c,'"OFROIolAloERICA.NOICITALCARTCGRAPtfr,INC.
CUA!llWlGt.ESFILESO(llAY28.:996.MTO'o'NOF(A$r~0tl
P1.NWINGOEPAAT14[NTw.PS~EDSEF'T&lEER1992BYltR.P_-'HO
SlJf'FOl..KCOOI<ffi'REALPROPERTYTA,1(w.P_m~orJl,t<lEl.19r.;.
r
"- ....,~
- ''-',' :;:.-
..._/...-,..,.,....,., "
LIGHT HoeSE
/~
PROSPECT
HIll
-.
"\.-,
~~:,.'-.-
'-
.-~.::::::.:-
'/~J.
5.J ~~"'"
<cr. ...."~
NATuRI~J~it~k'
-----'
MO~TAUK BF:ACH
,'pO H:,;;''';''::,;::
DlT(" .
~___ PL\Ji'f~ e.
"-- ..-
BATHING BE~
WI FACIUTIESH.A. "..
",
..,
<-.".,-.
'-
-~
,.. - ...I'~. -"J:""
BATHING BEACH
W I FACILITIES __ _~ ~.o~-
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITIES
L. K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C. Exhibit No.
10-1
February 1997 L.K.M.A. Proj. No. 30-000-16
'<;~'
s~,~: "":!"F,~'_'<=: "':.'
::.,..-\.
. 'v,'.'.
,':....-
~~ f<.,~~~.-~
.,:z~-:z..;.
~ . 0' /
.._.Y/
',,-'11;
--r.-...."' .
~. ' ..
.
." FlREPun
"",-
.,.~,
, ;---
/'
..'
----;
L:;;
.:: ~'-.
.
"~'"W_'
-,:.,.",-
;
. :4
'_.__.~;._-~;-: ,'-' B~7HI'\'"
_;__--::::..,....... .. . H
"c-,""
'.
."
we
KEY
-
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
. I..!!..... I: TOUR OF THE HAMPTONS BDKE ROUTES -
LOCAL CYCLIST RECOMMENDED ROUTES
---- PROPOSED BIKE PATH
-u-.,_ PROPOSED BIKE LANES (RTE. 27)(RTE. 114) -
(EDGEMERE/FLAMINGO AVE.)(THREE IDLE HARBOR RD.)
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPDON SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
. POINTS OF INTEREST A POST OFFICE III SCHOOL
&. TRAlN STATION &. UBRARY & MUSEUM
BEACH
.,~.",c., o.
BATHI"'G BEACH
'. WI FACIUTIES
.4
,,,
1-'/'
---_/':~~-
{. "
-'~
~'--'
~-/
'---
NAI>r.'\'c..a~
--
~
~'-
. ..--/
r-,;'e>:':A:.1:: ":,2C,R
---~,"'-.
PRO!l{f~F.D LAXD
.,.&
~~ \;
:::i
"". .~
';-:;,
" .c',
-":'"-'";
APAQtJ'()(;'l'E .
- C ------&- --
1 ." ,_,.,.., ,. BATHING BEACH
'.-'--. WI FACILITIES
BATHING BEACH
M ~4. 1 7
-A-~L\(i-~[,TO'~-'-
BATHING BEACH
WI FACILITIES
,,: J"., .,~
.:;:::.;.;;
---- -1:--
BATHING BEACH
WI FACIUTIES
__,_!i~'IT .~PT~~'\~__ _'__
IlAl'ilL"-fG"-SEACH
WI FACIUTIES
~ . ".-
'::. ?::~
-'0:;:.
:"'.
~-,~':.-.
---r------
.
.
10.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Implement a system of bicycle lanes, paths and routes to promote safe bicycle travel in the
Town. Establishment of these routes should be preceeded by a study of the affected roadways
to determine whether appropriate pavement widths and signs can be provided to establish the
facilities.
.
.
A bicycle education effort should be encouraged. Additional bicycle racks should be provided
at beaches and shopping areas. Bicycle racks or lockers should be installed at train stations.
.
.
In conjunction with improvements identified in Section 5.0 for the Town's bus system, buses
should have the capability of transporting bicycles. Recognizing the fact that this is a difficult
task with existing equipment, perhaps buses with this capability can be gradually "phased-in"
in the future.
.
.
.
.
10-3
.
.
11.0 OTHER MODES OF TRAVEL
.
11.1 TAXIS
.
Taxi and limousine service within the Town is provided by private companies. Taxis meet LIRR
trains at the Town's train stations. Taxi service can also be arranged by telephone.
.
There is no regulation of taxi service in the Town. Fares can vary significantly, both by locale
($5.00 flat rate within the Montauk area, metered service in other areas) by season (reports of
summer fares 50 percent higher than winter for the same ride), and by taxi company.
.
.
11.2 ROLLERBLADING
Rollerblading has become a very popular recreational activity on the Town's roadways,
particularly in the summer season. Concerns of residents, primarily safety-related, have been
expressed at Citizens Advisory Committee meetings in Springs, Wainscott, and Amagansett.
Most of the concerns cited observations of individuals skating two or more-abreast on the
roadway pavement.
.
.
.
The Town is considering adoption of a local law on bicycles and skates (roller skates, in-line
skates and skateboarding) that would:
o Reinforce certain provisions of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law requiring
bikes and skaters to stay to the right in single fIle, and prohibiting attachment to vehicles.
.
11-1
.
.
o
o
Inclusion of these provisions in the local law will enable Traffic Control Officers to
enforce them.
Prohibit skating in downtown areas of Amagansett and Montauk.
Prohibit skating on Route 27 and certain other roadways with significant traffic volumes.
.
.
.
Prohibitions of skating in certain areas would appear to be in conflict with Sections 1231 and
1234 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which states that skaters have the same rights as bicyclists.
Bicycle travel is currently restricted on controlled-access roads only.
.
It should be noted that rinks where skaters can safety practice their sport exist in the Town, and
new facilities have been proposed.
.
.
11.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Regulation of taxi service and fares is required. This will enable proper publicity of service
areas and fares to be made available to the public, and encourage use of taxis. These measures
will optimize the effectiveness of the taxi system as a component of the Town's transportation
system.
.
.
The Town should adopt a proposed local law regarding rollerblading and skating which
reinforces the State's Vehicle and Traffic Law. Public education on these modes of travel
should also be incorporated into the curriculum of local schools.
.
11-2
.
.
12.0 DEMAND MANAGEMENT
.
.
In the last ten years, more attention has been focused on the need to reduce "demand" on the
transportation infrastructure in the United States. Previously, attention has been focused
primarily on the "supply" of adequate highway facilities to handle existing development and
future growth. Recently, the realization that the capacity of the highway network has been
outpaced by traffic growth from both development and vehicle registration increases has resulted
in efforts to reduce demands on the system.
.
.
.
As evidenced by the historical growth in summer traffic in the Town, East Hampton has far
outpaced the normal traffic growth in the Western Towns of Suffolk County. The latter growth
is typically less than 3 percent annually; East Hampton's summer traffic growth has exceeded
an average of 6 percent annually since 1965 on Route 27, and 8 percent overall. The result of
this growth can be seen in the estimation of existing summer levels of service on the highway
system (on Exhibit 8-11) and at key intersections (fable 8-2).
.
.
These results indicate that East Hampton is at a critical point in time, as far as managing demand
on its transportation system is concerned. Current summer conditions will continue to
deteriorate rapidly, if subject to future annual growth similar to that experienced since 1965.
.
.
Consistent with the recent national focus on reducing "demand" on the transportation system
rather than increasing the "supply" of highway lanes, public input obtained in the preparation
12-1
.
.
.
of this report has stressed the desire not to widen roadways in the Town. Construction of new
roadways, particularly bypass routes to Route 27, were once a highly debated topic in East
Hampton and are the subject of considerable discussion in the 1966 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan. Today, public consensus is strongly against construction of new bypass
routes. While public sentiment on construction of new roads and additional lanes is primarily
based on maintaining the rural character of life in the Town, which is being threatened by the
yearly increases in traffic volumes, it is reinforced by the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments.
.
.
.
12.1
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
.
The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act amendments added a sense of urgency to the efforts of demand
management. Under the law, places in the United States which are in federal "non-attainment"
areas were to be included in a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Suffolk County was included
in non-attainment areas for both ozone and carbon monoxide. Suffolk's ozone non-attainment
was classified as severe and the carbon monoxide level as moderate. The SIP details measures
to reduce vehicle miles of travel (VMT), thereby reducing congestion and vehicle emissions.
A region's transportation program must be in conformance with the SIP; furthermore, individual
component projects of the project (Le. a region's Transportation Improvement Program) must
also be in conformance with the SIP.
.
.
.
The emphasis of the Clean Air Act was to improve air quality by reducing traffic congestion
through a reduction in vehicle miles of travel. It was anticipated that a combination of measures
.
12-2
.
.
.
would be necessary to achieve the goal of reduced congestion, and in turn, reduced vehicle
emissions, through a reduction in vehicular trips.
.
Because of the "severe" ozone non-attainment classification for Suffolk County, each employer
of 100 or more people was to develop a plan to increase work-trip vehicle occupancy by 25
percent by November 1994. By November 1996, employers were to have demonstrated
compliance with the plan. The law did not dictate the specific measures to be utilized in
achieving the vehicle occupancy goals.
.
.
In 1996, however, these measures, known as Employee Commute Options (BCO), were made
voluntary. A limited amount of funding is provided by the NYSDOT through its Long Island
Region Improving Commuting (LIRIC) grant program, which is intended to encourage major
employers to implement voluntary ECO programs. Proposals for LIRIC grants are solicited each
fall and projects which show the greatest promise to reduce vehicular traffic are chosen for
funding for a period not to exceed two years. Although the number of loo-employee businesses
in the Town is scarce, some of the voluntary techniques such as ridesharing, and alternative
work hours may help to reduce demand on East Hampton's highway system.
.
.
.
.
12.2 DEMAND MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
Some of the key demand management techniques include growth management, negotiated
demand management agreements, trip reduction ordinances, ridesharing, alternative work hours
and telecommuting. An overview of each of these techniques follows:
.
12-3
.
.
o
GROWfH MANAGEMENT
.
.
This technique involves the use of public policy to regulate the location, pattern, density, quality
and growth rate of development. By controlling types of land use allowable in an area, new
vehicular trips can be limited to a level consistent with the capacity of the roadway infrastructure
and a desirable level of service. Examples of growth management legislation are the
Montgomery County, Maryland, Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, and Florida's Omnibus
Growth Management Act. The Montgomery County procedure involves the annual
determination of traffic generated by existing and approved development, and an assessment of
the roadway infrastructure's ability to accommodate the additional traffic at a selected level of
service. If available capacity exists for a particular development project, it can be approved;
if not, the project must wait for capacity, or it must include construction of the additional
capacity. The 1995 Florida legislation is similar in that growth cannot occur unless adequate
roadways are provided to accommodate it. Local governments must develop comprehensive
plans, land development regulations and level of service standards. Florida's plan also includes
growth management of educational facilities and utilities by similar means.
.
.
.
.
.
o
NEGOTIATED DEMAND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
.
This technique involves negotiation of traffic mitigation agreements on a project-by-project basis.
These agreements detail the means of reducing potential vehicular trips for a proposed
development to a pre-determined goal. The measures employed may be left up to the developer,
or, in some instances, such as in Los Angeles, may be stipulated by the government agency.
Montgomery County requires an irrevocable bond or letter of credit be posted to "guarantee."
.
12-4
.
.
forecasted trip reduction.
.
.
On a smaller scale, the Town practiced this form of demand management in its 1996 adoption
of legislation pertaining to "superstores", which are defined as retail stores over 15,000 square
feet in size. The Town initially passed a moratorium on approval of "superstores" in order to
enable a study assessing their effects to be completed. An application for a 34,000 square foot
supermarket was the reason for commissioning this study.
.
.
The study concluded that, in order to achieve the following objectives, a 25,000 square foot
store, to be located only within Central Business District zoning, would be appropriate:
o Minimize "sprawl" type of development, outside of currently established business
districts, which would encourage additional automobile trips on congested roadways.
Encourage developments in Central Business Districts, where other modes of travel such
as bus, pedestrian, and bicycles can be utilized more readily.
Minimize the potential for use of bypass routes to access these developments.
o
.
.
o
.
o
TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCES
.
Trip reduction ordinances are enacted by local governments to reduce traffic from future
development. Examples of these ordinances are those that stipulate percentages of new trips to
be made on modes other than single-occupancy vehicles (e.g. carpooling, vanpoo1ing, transit),
or permit specific maximum percentages of a project's total trips which may occur during the
.
12-5
.
.
.
peak highway hour. Most of these plans apply to both existing and new developments, exempt
residential uses, and prescribe traffic mitigation goals without specifying the measures to meet
the goals. Most do not, however, provide penalties for failure to attain desired trip reduction
goals.
.
o
RIDESHARING
.
Ridesharing includes carpooling, vanpooling and buspooling. Locally, Long Island Ridesharing
has been successful in providing assistance in establishing carpools and vanpools for Long Island
businesses and has set up annual Ridershare Weeks to encourage use of carpools and mass
transit.
.
.
Ridesharing functions best if the riders are given incentives such as preferential parking
treatment, e.g. reserved spaces at their destinations. Some firms have implemented lunch time
van service to eating establishments and "guaranteed rides home" for carpool members in case
of emergencies.
.
o
ALTERNATIVE WORK HOURS
.
.
The use of alternative work hours, such as staggered hours, "flex time", and a compressed work
week serves to reduce peak hour traffic. With staggered hours, different groups of employees
begin and end work at different times. "Flex time" allows employees some freedom in choosing
their daily work hours. Compression of the work week (e.g. from five- 8 hour days to four-
10 hour days) is another example of alternative work hours.
.
12-6
.
.
o
TELECOMMUTING
.
.
Telecommuting involves permitting employees to work at home, and providing them with a
communications link with their business office. The link may take the form of a computer
modem, facsimile (fax) machine or telephone, and can be used to transmit the work product to
the office, and instructions to the home. As a result, telecommuting can significantly reduce the
number of home-to-work trips required by the employee.
.
.
This technique, while normally effective, may have some negative effects in the Town. There
is a significant segment of "semi-commuters" included within the summer populace in the Town.
These "semi-commuters" travel to East Hampton on the weekend, returning to permanent
residences in New York City and elsewhere on Long Island during the week. The
telecommuting option for this segment would appear to benefit peak travel conditions by
eliminating the weekly trip to and from East Hampton, but has the potential to increase daily
weekday trips for recreational and shopping purposes.
.
.
o
PARKING MANAGEMENT
.
In business districts, parking management tactics can be useful in optimizing land available for
parking, reducing numbers of vehicles circulating through, and between, parking fields, and
reducing walking distances for pedestrians. In established areas, such as the Village of East
Hampton, these techniques can be highly controversial, as the needs of merchants, residents and
visitors are often in conflict. A succint summary of Parking Management Tactics, taken from
.
.
12-7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE 12-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPQRTATION PLAN
Tabl. 3-6-T".. of PaJtdng Manag.ment Tactics
OD-Street Off-Street Parking Supply in Fringe and
Parking Supply Adivity CeIlWs Corridor Parking
Pricing
.
Enforcement
and Adjudication
.
Marketing
. Expand or Restrict Off'-SUt'et Supply in
CBD and Activity Cemas
- Zoning Requirements
. Minimum Requ.i~ments
. Maximum Rtquimnents
. Joint Use
- Constrain Nomu.l Growth in SuppJy
. Muimwn Ceilina (Le. Fm::lle) on
CBD S.....
e, Wuccd Minimum Parking
Requimnems TIuough HOV .nd
Tn.ositIDttDli-.a
. Restrrt Prindpal Use Parking
-
- Construct New Lou and Garages
. Ow>ao _ of Shan ond Lona'lmn
Pllrking
. Rmrict Parking Befim or During
_ Houn oftlx Doy
. PIdi:rentioJPllrking
- CarpooIIVanpool Porkina
- llandicapped Pllrking
- SnWl 'khide S.....
. Add or ~ spaces
. OIange Mix of Short and
Lona'lmn Puking
. Parkillf Restrictions
- PW Puiod
Restriction.
- Qft'-Pcak Restn:r:ions
- AI""""" $;de Pllrking
By Tune of Day
and/or Doy of~
- _bJe Porking
Durations
- Prohibitions on
Pllrkinglldioo.
Specified Houn
. Residential Parking
Pomit Programs
. CarpooIIVllJ>IK>OI
PIrimnio1 Parlting
- CarpooIIV.npool
M&n
- CarpooIIV.npool
Stid<m
. Loading Zone
R<guIotions
- Bus
-lW
- DdMry
- DipJomal
Source: John Direnzo, et ai, Study of Parking Manogement Tactics, U.S. DOT Repen DOT .FH.ll.9537, December 1979
,.
-
C>
C>
lD
C>
><
~
C>
'"
,.
~
~
~
<
!S
5!
'"
-
'"
,.
~
~
;=;
8
z
'"
~
~
6
z
. Fringe Padting
. Plark and Ride Parking
. CarpoolNanpool Parking
. O\ange Parking Rates
- IncRase IW.es
. Parking Price I~se
. Parking Rate Structun: Rtvision
. Parking ox
. Pnrking Surt:harge
- D~DSe Rates
- Free Parking in CBO
- DifbentiaI Pricing Progr:ams
. Short.:n:nn \'S. Long:thm Rates
. CarpoolNanpool Discounts
. Vehicle Size Discounts
. Geographically Difl"erentiakd
Ra...
. Monthly Contract Rates
. Mocl1ant Shopper Discounts
- Stamp Programs
- 10ken Programs
. Employor Parlting SubsKiies
- Reduce Subsidies
- TransitlHOV Subs.idit$
. EnfOrcement
- Non-Police
Enfun:ement Personnel
-Ticketing
- 'lbwing
- Booting
. Adjudication
- Administmive
- Judicial
. Advertising
-Brochures
-Mo",
- Media
. Conw:nience Progl"llml
(Le. Monthly Contl"llCll)
.
.
'"
C'i
'"
~
~
~
.
.
the Institute of Transportation Engineers' publication, "A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic
Congestion", is shown on Table 12-1.
.
In proximity to both the Village of East Hampton and Amagansett, it would appear that fringe
parking, such as that proposed on a weekend trial basis at Town Hall in conjunction with shuttle
bus service, could be successful. The fringe parking area would offer the benefit of increasing
beach and business district parking spaces, while at the same time removing vehicles from those
areas.
.
.
.
The applicability of other techniques is subject to further discussion among Village and Town
representatives, merchants, residents and visitors. The Village of East Hampton currently is
very diligent in enforcing existing parking regulations.
.
12.3 APPLICABLE TECHNIQUES FOR EAST HAMPTON
East Hampton's summer highway traffic conditions are predominantly determined by the
magnitude of traffic volumes generated by tourism. As a result, the implementation of the
aforementioned traditional demand management techniques, which focus primarily on current
employer-generated traffic and future development, only addresses a portion of the problem.
As traffic conditions on the Town's highway system have reached critical levels, restrictive
controls on traffic generated by future land development, while necessary, are not sufficient to
ensure that traffic conditions do not deteriorate any further. A continuation of recent summer
traffic increases (which are on the order of 8 percent per year), even under a moratorium on
.
.
.
12-8
.
.
.
future land development, will cause an expansion of congested highway segments and more
widespread use of local, residential bypass routes.
.
Consequently, to attempt to accommodate ever-increasing summer traffic, more reliance must
be placed on modes of transportation other than the automobile. In addition .to increasing
mobility of the travelling public, improvements to the Town's existing bus, rail and bicycle
facilities will improve air quality in conformity with the goals of the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments and the new Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Rail and
bus vehicles have the capability of moving greater numbers of travellers than the automobile,
while removing a significant number of automobiles from the road, and increasing the average
speed of the remaining vehicles on the road. While the implementation of improved,
coordinated rail and bus service, serving commuters, shoppers and beach-goers alike, is a
daunting task, the Town has limited options which will adequately address the problem of traffic
congestion.
.
.
.
.
.
It is apparent that other techniques, such as "auto restricted" zones and the imposition of tolls
(Le. "congestion pricing") would have limited support among Town residents. "Auto-restricted"
zones in downtown areas may have some applicability on less heavily-travelled routes than Route
27; a likely result of their implementation would be a shift in traffic to other, less desirable
routes. Route 27 is the only viable route to Montauk, and must maintain that function on its
route through downtown areas on the South Fork.
.
.
12-9
.
.
.
There have been proposals to create a major multi-modal transportation center on the South
Fork, perhaps at Gabreski Airport in Westhampton. The center would accommodate vast
amounts of vehicles for long-term parking. Motorists could transfer to frequent rail or bus
service to continue their trip easterly. The imposition of a toll, perhaps at the Shinnecock Canal,
which is crossed only by the Long Island Rail Road, Sunrise Highway (Route 27 at that point)
and Montauk Highway, would encourage transfer to other modes of travel. The toll could be
variable, i.e. increased during peak periods of congestion, such as Friday and Sunday evenings.
Residents could obtain a "pass" for an annual fee to allow them to bypass toll lanes.
.
.
.
.
Principal drawbacks to this scheme include a lack of local support, and uncertainty regarding
its effectiveness in terms of establishing toll rates sufficient to remove significant amounts of
vehicles from the highways.
12.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
.
.
The Town is at a "crossroads" in terms of managing demand on its transportation system, as
evidenced by summer traffic growth on its highway system over the last 30 years. Future
strategies must focus on diverting automobile trips to other modes of travel, particularly rail and
bus, and taking all possible measures to ensure that new, future trips occur on modes other than
auto.
.
Naturally, future land development will continue to occur, in conformance with the revised
Town Land Use Plan. Any future development will generate additional trips on the highway
.
12-10
.
.
.
system, an undesirable condition based on the current summer levels of service on roadways,
and at intersections in the- Town. Due to the critical capacity conditions of the roadway
network, it is recommended that, any future development causing a deterioration equal in
magnitude to a full level of service at any intersection or highway segment (as defined in the
Highway Capacity Manual) not be permitted. In addition, any proposed modifications to the
highway system as a result of any such development should conform to the following criteria.
These criteria were established as a result of consistent, public input during the course of this
study, and are based on the desire to maintain the Town's rural character:
.
.
o
No new roads with the potential for attracting "bypass" traffic should be constructed.
No additional through travel lanes should be constructed on existing roads.
No additional traffic signals should be installed.
Potential traffic growth on existing bypass routes should be minimized.
.
o
o
.
o
.
It is hoped that these criteria will avoid further, major deterioration of summer conditions on the
Town's roadways, while encouraging developers to maximize the capacity of other modes of
transportation to accommodate new trips.
.
.
This approach is a form of Growth Management, in that it is based on a determination of
available highway capacity for new development projects. It is more restrictive than traditional
Growth Management techniques, because it places a limit on roadway improvements based on
the Town's rural nature. The Town should consider local legislation to formalize this Demand
Management Technique.
.
12-11
.
.
13.0 LAND USE PLAN
.
13.1 RELATIONSHIP TO TRANSPORTATION
.
The Town of East Hampton is in the process of revising its Land Use Plan. The current Land
Use Plan was initially prepared in 1984. The revised plan will estll.blish a basis for future
zoning in the Town.
.
.
Since generation of trips on highways and transit facilities is dependent upon specific land uses,
existing and future land uses and transportation are fundamentll.lly interrelated. Land uses such
as single family homes and condominiums will generate significantly less trips than commercial
uses in an equal area of land. Thus the Town can utilize its revised Land Use Plan to create
zoning conditions which will minimize future impacts on its strained highway system.
.
.
The Town's current Land Use Plan has already established vast amounts of open space uses, for
recreational, aesthetic, environmentll.l, agricultural, and water supply purposes. Specific business
districts have been classified as central, neighborhood, waterfront and resort. Industrial areas
have been established, primarily around the Town airport, between Springs and East Hampton
Village, and along the LIRR west of East Hampton Village and in Montauk. Residential zoning
of two, three and five acres, which have the least transportation impact, exist in many less-
developed areas of the Town.
.
.
.
13-1
.
.
In its current Land Use Plan, the Town has already taken steps to reduce the "sprawl" type of
. growth prevalent in other areas of Long Island. That growth occurred largely due to years of
building additional highways to address skyrocketing linear growth in automobile usage. A
cyclical condition was created, i.e. as more highways were built, linear growth occurred along
.
the highways rather than in specific major growth centers. The growth, in turn, mandated more
highway construction to accommodate new traffic generation. This type of growth, due to its
. low density, severely limited the ability of mass transit to serve as a viable alternative for most
Long Islanders.
.
13.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
.
The Town, in its revised Land Use Plan, should continue its effort to generally concentrate more
intense land uses near downtown areas in Wainscott, Amagansett, and Montauk. Every effort
should be made to promote future "neo-traditional" types of developments in these areas. "Neo-
traditional" neighborhood development is a "rebirth" of the traditional American concept of a
"small Town". This type of development attempts to create an environment which affords less
reliance on automobile travel. Retail, office and multi-family residential uses are concentrated
in a mini-downtown area. Some area is left open for parks and community use. Less dense
residential uses generally surround the more-developed downtown.
.
.
.
This type of development encourages pedestrian and bicycle usage to the downtown area, from
the surrounding residential uses. In addition, establishment of a concentrated core area of
retail/office uses facilitates service by bus or rail modes of travel to other, similar, downtown
.
13-2
.
.
.
areas. Thus, there is significant potential to remove vehicular trips from the highway system in
this neo-traditional neighborhood, or mini-center, type of development.
.
Consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan's encouragement for each hamlet to provide
services for its residents, this type of development would help reduce trips between hamlets.
.
Since the framework for these developments already exists in the Town's current Land Use Plan,
it is recommended that land use and zoning modifications further encourage neo-traditional
neighborhood developments, as a means of further reducing reliance on automobile travel within
the Town. It is important that the Village of East Hampton and Sag Harbor adopt similar
policies, as the Villages already contain large downtown areas, which have the greatest potential
for improved service by bus and/or rail modes of travel, as well as increased pedestrian and
bicycle usage.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13-4
.
.
14.0 REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
.
.
14.1 RELATIONSHIP TO SOUTHAMPTON 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE
The Town of Southampton is located immediately west of the Town of East Hampton. The
Village of Sag Harbor lies in both Towns. Due to its geographical location, Southampton serves
as the summer gateway to the South Fork of Long Island. All vehicular traffic destined for East
Hampton must pass through the Town of Southampton or the Village of Sag Harbor.
.
.
.
Southampton's transportation needs and deficiencies are very similar to those in East Hampton.
As a result, the transportation goals of Southampton's (draft) Comprehensive Plan Update (see
Exhibit 14-1) are consistent with those of this Plan.
.
The proximity of Southampton dictates that recommendations be made in the various other
sections of this report be reviewed in light of potential effects in Southampton. This is
particularly true for the bus and rail systems, which serve the South Fork as an entity, rather
than each Town individually.
.
.
The "South Fork Bike Path" will be shared between the two Towns. The Path will run adjacent
to the entire length of the LIRR right-of-way in Southampton, and will continue in this fashion
in East Hampton to Amagansett. .
.
14-1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A VISION FOR TRANSPORTATION
To CREATE MORE CHOICES FOR RESIDENTS IN HOW THEY TRAVEL TO AND THROUGH TOWN, AND TO CREATE A
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT WORKS IN TANDEM WITH LAND USE TO PRESERVE A LANDSCAPE OF RURAL ROADS
WITH DISTINCT VILLAGE AND HAMLET CENTERS.
VISION GOALS:
1) Stre!]ts: Better management, classification and improvement
of the existing infrastructure, rather than new highways and
arterials.
2) Traffic calming: Acknowledge the joint use of streets by
bicycles and pedestrians in addition to motor vehicles in all future
street and traffic planning.
3) Bicycling and walking: Create a predictable, safe, and
ubiquitous bicycling and walking network, Initially targeted for
recreational use but eventually accommodating utilitarian use as
well.
4) Trains and Long-Distance Buses: Enhance services and
amenities that increase ridership and rider satisfaction especially
targeted to meeting peak summer demand.
5) Local Public Transport: In the short term, emphasize buses
and beach access, but in the long term, build an infrastructure to
increase year-round commuter and utilitarian use.
6) Intermodal: Make transfers between modes (bus/train,
trainlbicycle, car/train, etc.) seamless.
7) Land Use: Strengthen shopping and other activities In
vi/fage and hamlet centers, to reduce the need for automobile
trips; assure that these centers are convenIent to get to; but
within the centers, put the priority on pedestrians, not
through-traffic.
8) Scenery: Improve how residents and visitors perceive
the experience of traveling on Southampton's streets, by all
forms of transportation.
9) Regional perspective: Seek inter-municipal,
inter-governmental and public/private partnerships at two
scales: to solve specific problems on specific streets, but
also to seek alternatives to deal with what are in fact regional
problems.
1"'\........... ~ MAv?R I QQA
EXHIBIT 14-1
.
.
14.2 EAST END ISSUES
The Five East End Towns (East Hampton, Southampton, Riverhead, Southold and Shelter Island)
share many transportation concerns. An East End Transportation Council has been formed by
the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association, with the mandate to develop short and long-
term recommendations for each mode of transportation. Issues to be addressed include:
.
.
o
LACK OF AN ACTIVE, REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORT
.
The designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the New York City area is the New York
Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC). The area includes all of New York City and
Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland, Westchester and Putnam Counties. Representing the Nassau-Suffolk
Area is the Nassau/Suffolk Transportation Coordinating Committee (fCC). TCC representatives
include officials from the State and the two Counties. It is the TCC that holds public meetings
to establish the Region's five-year Transportation Improvement Program (rIP), which identifies
all transportation projects utilizing Federal, State and County funding. Inclusion in the TIP is
a pre-requisite for obtaining Federal and State funding.
.
.
.
Historically, the overwhelming majority of Suffolk County TIP projects have been conceived and
implemented in the five Western Towns. Typically, this area experiences more year-round
congestion than that on the East End. There has, however, been a lack of recognition of the
need to address summer congestion on the East End, in terms of assigning funds for project
implementation. While this has undoubtedly been partially due to a lack of participation in the
TIP process by the individual East End Towns, the lack of a concerted, overall East End
.
.
14-2
.
.
transportation planning effort has also been responsible.
.
.
A case in point is the NYSDOT's assignment of its planning for the area to Albany rather than
its regional Hauppauge office because of the "rural" nature of the region. Since the summer
traffic congestion on the East End is an "urban" condition experienced in an otherwise rural
environment, more regional attention needs to be brought to the area by the East End Towns,
in the form of local, coordinated transportation planning.
.
.
NYSDOT is currently conducting the Long Island Transportation Study to Manage Congestion
to address all modes of transportation on Long Island. NYSDOT's recent addition of a
representative from the entirely rural portion of Suffolk County (the Towns of Southold, Shelter
Island and East Hampton) to complement representation from the Towns of Southampton and
Riverhead is a positive measure.
.
.
o
RAIL SYSTEM
.
There is frustration among East End residents regarding service provided by the Long Island
Rail Road, on its Montauk and Main Line (Greenport) branches. The railroad serves several
downtown areas of the East End, and thus could be utilized to reduce the reliance on summer
automobile travel through increased local service. East Enders understand the LIRR's reasons
for an inability to provide more frequent train service. These include lack of track capacity in
the East River tunnel leading to Penn Station, existence of single track system on the East End,
and limited numbers of locomotives and cars. However, these conditions should not preclude
.
.
14-3
.
.
.
a study of the LIRR's approach to service on the East End, with regard to institution of "shuttle"
type service on the North and South Forks. This concept was. identified as an action
recommendation in the 1993 report, "Blueprint for Our Future (the report to Governor Mario
Cuomo)" by the East End Economic and Environmental Task Force and is supported in
"Southampton Tomorrow."
.
.
Perhaps the LIRR's recently announced plans to seek funding for completion of the rail link to
Grand Central terminal can result in a long-term increase in frequency of rail service to the East
End. In any event, the scope of the Comprehensive Rail Study recommended in Section 4.4
should be expanded to include the North Fork (i.e. LIRR Main Line) as well.
.
.
o
FERRIES
.
The future extent of ferry service to the East End of Long Island is a controversial issue. While
ferry service at first glance seems to be desirable in that it has the potential to reduce reliance
on the automobile, there are certain other considerations that will determine whether this mode
of travel has future viability.
.
.
Ferry service on the East End can be classified as follows:
o Intra-East End service, such as existing service from North Haven and Greenport
to Shelter Island
o
Service to New England, such as existing service to Orient Point from New
London
.
14-4
.
.
.
o Service to New York City, such as the recently-proposed high-speed passenger
service to Sag Harbor
The Town of Southold has experienced problems with the existing private ferry service form
Orient Point to New London. The 1995 expansion from a passenger/vehicular ferry service to
include higher-speed passenger-only service, with a bus link to a Connecticut casino, has caused
parking problems in the vicinity of the Orient ferry terminal. The Town is currently involved
in litigation stemming from the ferry company's application for a change of zone to allow
construction of parking near the terminal.
.
.
.
It is clear that parking impacts, as well as those to the adjacent highway network, must be
thoroughly investigated before any new ferry service to the East End is established. Otherwise,
any apparent benefit, such as the ability of a Sag Harbor passenger ferry to move weekend
travellers to the East End without using automobiles, could be negated.
.
.
o
BUS SYSTEM
.
The East End Towns share the following needs, with regard to public bus transit:
o Better publicity of existing service
o More frequent service on existing routes
.
o
o
Extended hours of service, both daily and on weekends
Improved coordination with rail service, employment areas, shopping districts,
and private bus service
.
14-5
.
.
o
Need for new summer feeder service and extension of summer service to year-
round service on some routes
Need for service to recreational areas
.
o
.
The Towns recognize the fact that the existing Suffolk Transit System requires significant
subsidies in order to continue in operation. On a short-term basis, there is a need for the Towns
to establish dialogue with Suffolk Transit in order to address the needs identified above.
.
.
14.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
A concerted planning effort for the five East End Towns is required to raise awareness of
summer traffic concerns on the East End, and identify viable studies and projects for
implementation to address the concerns. The following recommendations should be
implemented:
o Conduct a comprehensive study of the current and future functions to be served by the
Long Island Rail Road on the East End, including:
o Service to New York City
o Intra-East End Service (Le. "Shuttle" and/or light rail service)
o Coordination with other modes of travel, including bus, taxi, bicycle, pedestrian
and automobile
.
.
.
.
o
A similar comprehensive study of the public bus system, incorporating private bus
service, should be undertaken, addressing the needs identified in Section 14.2.
.
14-6
.
.
o
A study of potential new ferry service on the East End, identifying the requirement that
negative impacts to existing modes of travel (including automobile and pedestrians) must
be addressed, should be undertaken.
.
.
o The Towns should work together in developing a regional bicycle facility plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14-7
.
.
15.0 FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS
.
.
Specific recommendations for improvements in all modes of transportation appear in each section
of this report. Key recommendations are summarized in Table 15-1.
.
A major funding source of transportation improvements on Long Island has been the 1991
Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The act is expiring in the Fall of
1997, to be replaced by NEXTEA (National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency
Act). It is anticipated that many of the funding sources of ISTEA will be retained, and that
more intermodal projects will be eligible for funding under NEXTEA. ISTEA had authorized
federal aid, highway and transit programs for six years, at a total funding level of $155 billion.
While the goal was to increase funding for highway projects by 63 percent, transit programs
were to see a 91 percent increase. Financing was provided by extending Highway Trust Fund
revenues, including the 2.5 cent addition to the federal gas tax in December of 1990, through
the end of the decade. The National Highway System was established by ISTEA.
.
.
.
.
In addition to providing funding increases for highway and mass transit projects, ISTEA was to
provide greater state and local flexibility in shifting funds between highway and mass transit
projects. For example, up to 50 percent of a state's National Highway System funds were
permitted to be used for other highway programs or for mass transit projects. Under the Surface
Transportation Program, which accounted for 16 percent ofISTEA's total funding, funds could
be used for any surface transportation project.
.
.
15-1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
F1nDn.ft -05J02J97
TABLE 15-1
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
KEY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
SCHEDULE LEGEND'
A - By2002
B - 2003-2007
C - Post 2007
ElEMENT
Bus
System
CESCRIPTlON
.. ...... . ........ 'r.- ....'..... .................,...,.,.....,..~..
Rehobll_ Cranberry Hole
.~.~...~~~.~..=ty~R
t:=~y;~;;;;;;'d~R
_. III four IoceIIons
.,-.............,..........
.-.-.--..-.--.................
....-............................._.....
_i;;;;;=~;;t;ds...
high ecddent IoceIIons
{Tobie 8::8)
IMPLEMENlED
ESTIMAlED COST BY FUND SOURCE SCHEDULE
~i;~~r;;~~hO~IJ;;;??.HHiII~8;~~;!.
improvements (Tabl. 8-4)
Summer shuttle bus -
trials.Nice
...................'...'..,....'.....:.-....,..'..,.,'..,.,'....,.......
';':':';':':':':':';':';';';':,;",:,,';-""'-"-'-'",-,
&;~'~~:~h~":
permanent.lrvice
$0.018 M
REMARKS
NYSDOT/(SDF)
A
Added $2 M to NYSDDT projects (pIN 00llU8 end 00158.112)
for Jeft turn lane consb'Uction It 1 0 IocaIionI
Rail Conduct comprehensive rail See Remark.
System .tudy
~fMri~cii
~.Herbor/(111')
.:.:.:.;.;.:.:.,.;.;.;.:.;.,.:.:.:.:.,
...............,...
............,,,.......
:.:.:.:.;.:,:,:.,:,:.~:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.'.'.:....,.,'......
...,.................::::':::,.,:.....'..,..
Air (Town Phos.1 Projeets See R.meJt<.
Airport)
A Umlts to be determined
A ................~~J~;;;;;;.;~.;;~b;8iiii:=,:~~;f.;;;..?}
:.;...c.:.:,:.:,:-:,;.:.:.,.,..:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:-:.;.:-:.:.:':':':':'...:"':'.:"'.'-:-
.,.-,...................."...... ........
............BriMf=:r...<..
~~~~)(il~o/m~ .
.-.-.-.-.-..............--:-'--.'.-.--:-,.--:-;...._..-,.-.,-...-....-.,'.....'-'..-.-,..-'....-.-,-...-:--.-.,.----.,-.--................'-'...'-.....-.--.,--,.-;--.;.:.:.:........-'...,-,_._-_._..---.:.:.-,;.:.-':',.-.",.,.:.:.
:"_:,:,:,:,:,:,,;_;_;,:,,,:,:,;,:,;,._,.:_..._:.:_,.:_,_,.,_;_;.,.;.:_;_:.;,;.:,:,:...:.:.;.;,:..,:::...:,:...:.:,:.:.;_;.:_:_,.:.:.;.:':.,':-:.:':-:.:':...:':_.':.,_......":,;,:,:,:,_,.-:,,,:,:,,-:,_,,-",-,,'-.-,-".',-,:_:,s,-.
A ... ...........i~~i~d~;;;;;;;;;G;;;;;;;;;~~~:5:;;:1;::1:;:;g,2ll:27:;;;d2:;: .
Does nallnctud. wort< don. by NYSDDT along ROlJIes 114 end 27
IIs.ted. .eparetely .on .lhls.teble.
.:.......'....-..._......-...............'...................'.'-'-'-'-'--"',-;-,-,',-",-.
.cou~iYifo;;;Nii~ .
01 Sag HOIbor,&st
.~~P!'!').Y."~m~1
.. . .. ......T;;;;;;;.cn~r.... .........'1k)g>.
;....,:...:_.,:,.'.:'.........'..,.,'..,'.'._,.. :'".::"'::;:::::':::::::':x::.:.:,:.:-:';-'.... ;:,.:.:".,:".:::.
E;;;h~:;;;:;;;y;;';;;;b~.~..;;;;;;p;;.~;;:A;;
annual program Ihoukt be established. Bued on costs of $200,000
mi. could Improw 4 ml/yearor40 mlover 10 year period.
Town
1997
:.:-:.,.:,:.:,:.:-:.:-:-:.:.:-:.,-,.,-,.;.:.:.:.:-;-:-:,;.:':';':':';':"':':';'.'"
.,..,............,....,....,............ .
.-,...-............'....-..................
.....+~.~;.;;;.....
\/in"(STlJ.AL
on
.. 'W' :.:.:.:.:.;-:.:.;.:::.:.,., ,:?:;,:,;::,:,:: :::::y:t..::::'::::;'::;:;'::;:':~;: .;.z.: :.:... :.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.;".;.; . w
PrepniiW~deVeiopmeiii SO.IIM .. . ...COuniY)f~iriff
progrem
.........."".........".............,..,.........
..._........-....................-........--..-..
......-.-.-......,-....,...,...............-........-........-...-.---...--...'..............
................................--........,......".
F.%;;::~~:;W;;;;d ..
III projeets
URR/NYSDOT/
EOSl End T<NifIS/
(TIP)
East Hampton issues shoukt be Incorporated into a major study,
encompassing URR operations in East End towns.
A
FAA/NVSOOT/Town A Usled in Section 7.'. Some projects under construction, some
completed. others not underway. , Q94 total costs for Phase I
................................................................................ ................................... .~.~1.:.~..~:...fee.~~.'l'..1:'.~d..~.ol.Ihes.. projects.
~=~bg+;t.;:fuD . pQh;;;ti~p;o~~;;t;~i;;~;;Vi;.;n;;;;;;;~d~m;IMii~~...
NOleS: TlP - Funding sources obtained through Inclusion on the Transportation Improwment Program
SDF - State Dedlceted Funds
STOA - SIal. T"",.ft DpereIIng As.I.tence
TBD - To Be Detennlned
RGD:efr
.
.
More emphasis was placed on planning efforts to improve air quality. ISTEA restricted the use
of federal funds in Clean Air Act non-attainment areas such as Suffolk County, unless a project
was part of an approved congestion management system.
.
The Federal Highway Administration has been actively encouraging innovative funding
mechanisms such as private sector takeover and tolling of existing highways, and congestion
. pricing, to fund the state and local shares of the cost of highway improvements.
In recent years, the State created dedicated funds for highway, bridge and mass transit use.
.
Establishment of these funds was a first step in ensuring that adequate monies are provided to
deal with the transportation needs of Long Island and New York State.
.
.
15.1 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
Public funding of Long Island's transportation needs is allocated through the Nassau-Suffolk
Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) process, and results in a regional Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The Nassau-Suffolk TCC is part of the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (NYMTC), which is the metropolitan planning organization fo~ the New
York Metropolitan area. In 1994, the NYMTC produced "Critical Issues-Critical Choices", the
"Long Range Plan" for the New York Metropolitan area through the year 2015. The plan is
intended to be used as a guide for updating the TIP, and is scheduled to be updated in 1997.
The plan takes a "corridor approach" in identifying highway and transit improvements in the
Region. None of the "corridors" are located within the five East End Towns.
.
.
.
15-2
.
.
.
The TIP is a five year capital construction program listing State and local transportation projects
which are funded entirely or partially with federal aid. For informational purposes, an
addendum to the TIP provides a listing of projects funded entirely by State, County, and other
non-federai sources.
.
.
Ideally, the TIP is to be updated annually by the TCC which is composed of Federal, State and
local officials. Public input is sought for the TIP update process at Committee meetings. The
TIP must conform with the approved Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
.
.
Included in the TIP are projects. to construct or rehabilitate roadways, bridges and railway
facilities, as well as to purchase buses. The TIP indicates the allocated funding sources for each
project, with a breakdown for engineering, right-of-way and construction costs.
.
The TIP also includes projects whose funding is entirely from State or County sources. In the
County's case, funds for these projects are appropriated in the County's Capital Improvement
Program before they are added to the TIP.
.
.
Projects are placed on the TIP based on the following criteria:
o Physical condition of the facility
o Capacity problems
o Safety needs
o Traffic volumes/passenger ridership
.
15-3
.
.
.
0 Environmental considerations
0 Benefitsl costs
0 Economic impact
0 Community considerations
0 Impacts on land use
0 Federal regulations
.
.
As noted in Section 8.5, only four projects within the Town currently appear in the TIP for the
next five years.
.
.
Typically, the principal ISTEA funding sources utilized in the TIP are:
o National Highway System (NHS)
o Interstate Maintenance Program (1M)
o Surface Transportation System (STS)
o Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR)
o Sections 3, 9 and 16 of ISTEA (Transit Funding)
.
.
.
Currently, NHS funds can only be utilized on Route 27. The STS funding offers the greater
potential for funding highway and transit projects within the Town. STS funding includes two
subcategories. The first of these are "transportation enhancement activities", which includes
facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, scenic beautification and historic preservation. This
funding accounts for 10 percent of the STP allocation, and is 80 percent federally-funded.
.
15-4
.
.
.
The second subcategory of STP funds is the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)
program, created to fund those highway and transit projects which can improve air quality in
non-attainment areas, including Suffolk County.
.
HBRR funds are used to rehabilitate bridges carrying vehicular traffic.
.
In addition to federal funding under ISTEA, State aid has historically been used to implement
highway and transit projects. Funding sources include:
.
o
o
State Dedicated Funds (Highway)
State Transit Operating Assistance (STOA)
.
Federal planning regulations require Transportation System Management (TSM) planning. As
part of this effort, NYSDOT developed the URIC grant program to encourage vehicle trip
reduction. Ninety percent of this funding is provided by the Federal Highway Administration.
Previous project recipients include marketing efforts for a jitney service to a LIRR rail station,
installation of bicycle lockers at another rail station, and carpool enhancements.
.
.
.
15.2 TOWN FUNDING
Other than projects listed in the TIP, publicly-funded improvements have been historically
implemented by the Town Highway Department through its approved annual capital and
maintenance budgets. An extensive number of projects have been completed throughout the
Town in this manner, typically including roadway resurfacing and reconstruction, construction
.
15-5
.
.
of sidewalk/safety paths and drainage improvements.
.
.
15.3 PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Other than gasoline tax, general revenue, and bonding sources, transportation improvements can
be funded under what can be described as the umbrella of "Public/Private Partnerships". These
can include the following measures, or combinations of them:
.
o ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
.
This is a tax levy on all property or business owners within a district to finance improvements
which primarily benefit them. The tax is typically approved by a majority of the owners. The
district can be supported by a municipality, which issues revenue bonds for the improvements,
and taxes owners to repay the bonds. Transportation Improvement Districts (TID) have been
established in business districts in some municipalities, to provide improvements to facilitate
customer access, such as additional parking.
.
.
.
A special assessment district such as a Transportation Development District is one with a
separate governing body, which can tax, issue bonds and provide services in the district area.
It may be dependent on, or independent of, the local governments which established it. One
such district was established in Hauppauge. Districts could be permitted to sell bonds, accept
and make contributions, contract with other governmental and private entities and carry out
construction. A district master plan addressing the following items is required:
o Existing and proposed traffic conditions
.
.
15-6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
Land use and zoning restrictions
Proposed transportation improvements
Cost estimates for proposed improvements
Means of financing the improvements
Required right-of-way purchases
Impact on transportation facilities of other jurisdictions
o
o
o
o
o
Successful establishment of these districts is dependent upon community support in the affected
areas.
o TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
This method utilizes tax revenues from new development to finance improvements in a specified
area. Typically, improvements are paid for with public funds, then repaid as increased tax
revenues are realized. New York's Municipal Redevelopment Law, primarily acceptable to
urban renewal areas, could be used to set up tax increment financing in undeveloped land areas.
o DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
This is a public/private agreement on specific development. A developer agrees to pay for
certain transportation improvements, in exchange for an agreement from the public sector to
streamline the approval process.
15-7
.
.
The Town's current "negotiation" practice requires a developer to assess his project's impact,
possibly including a detailed traffic study, which identifies roadway mitigation measures needed
to accommodate development traffic. After review by the Town, mitigation measures are
discussed and finalized. Required roadway improvements are then constructed by the developer.
.
15.4
RECOMMENDATIONS
PUBLIC FUNDING
.
o
.
The Town should aggressively pursue its fair share of public funding for the highway and transit
projects (including studies) identified in this report, through the TIP process. The Town should
maintain its level of funding for its own highway capital and maintenance projects in future
years.
.
o
PUBLIC/PRIV A TE FINANCING
.
Creation of assessment districts, such as Transportation Improvement Districts, should be
considered where appropriate. These measures may be useful in business districts such as that
in the Village of East Hampton, where parking is at a premium. Measures to alleviate parking
shortages, such as instituting shuttle bus service from remote parking areas, could be funded in
this manner.
.
.
Other improvements in business areas which benefit merchants as well as the public could be
funded by contributions from both the public and private sector.
.
15-8
.
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
.
"1990 United States Census Report", United States Department of Commerce.
.
"A '2020' Vision-Cape Cod's Long Range Transportation Plan (Summary)", Cape Cod
Commission, 1994.
"Airport Layout Plan UpDate-East Hampton Airport", C&S Engineers, Inc., 1994.
.
"All Way Stop Intersection Study (Draft) for Town of Brookhaven", L.K. McLean Associates,
P.C., 1996.
"Amagansett Corridor Study", Abeles, Phillips, Preiss and Shapiro, Inc. and Land Ethics, Inc.,
1997.
.
"Arterial Highway Capacity Study for Montauk, New York", L.K. McLean Associates, P.C.,
W~ .
"A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion", Institute of Transportation Engineers,
1989.
.
"Blueprint for Our Future", East End Economic and Environmental Task Force of Long Island,
New York, 1993.
"Clean Air Act Amendments", 1990.
.
"Comprehensive Plan-Town and Village of East Hampton", 1966.
"Comprehensive Plan-Transportation Element", City of Seattle, Washington, 1995.
"Connecticut Tribe to Invest Casino Profits in a Boatyard", New York Times, 1996.
.
"Critical Issues, Critical Choices, A Mobility Plan for the New York Region through the Year
2015", New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, 1994.
"East Hampton Superstore Study", Abeles, Phillips, Preiss and Shapiro, 1996.
.
"Environmental Action Plan", New York State Department of Transportation, 1983.
"Ferry Access Study", Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Transportation Division,
1990.
.
"Highway Capacity Manual", Tr.ansportation Research Board, 1994.
.
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY(Commue~
.
"Key West-Project Development and Environmental Study" , Florida Department of
Transportation, 1996.
"Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan", Town of East Hampton.
.
"Long Island Population Survey", Long Island Lighting Company, 1990.
"Memorandum regarding Regulatory Authority for Water Carriage", Michael McDonald, New
York State Department of Transportation, Passenger Transportation Division, 1996.
.
"The Power Broker, Robert Moses and the Fall of New York", Robert Caro, 1974.
"Residential Street Design and Traffic Control", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1989.
. "Sag Harbor Ferry Goes to the Board", East Hampton Indeoendent, 1996.
"Shoreham-New Haven Ferry Feasibility Study", Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
1991.
.
"Southampton Tomorrow (Transportation)", Draft, Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Ethics,
Inc. and Abeles, Phillips, Preiss and Shapiro, 1996.
"South Fork Transportation Study", Vollmer Associates, 1986.
.
"Super-Store Legislation Adopted", East Hampton Independent, 1996.
"Town of Brookhaven Transportation Plan (Draft)", L.K. McLean Associates, P.C., 1992.
"Town of South old vs. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.", New York State Supreme Court Case
No. 95-16263, 1995.
.
"Traffic Engineering for Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Design", Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 1994.
.
"Transportation Improvement Program 1994-1999" , Nassau-Suffolk Transportation Coordinating
Committee.
"Update of Traffic Circulation Plan-Town of East Hampton", Suffolk County Department of
Planning, Transportation Division, 1983.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MARCH 5TH, 1 9~
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NEEDS AND CONCERNS
INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF EAST HAHl'TON
KEY: ~ Not Discussed
+ Supported
+ + Strongly Supported
Compilation of, data imput from:
Circle Association
District One Association ,
Toilsome civic Association
Village Preservation Society
REMARI<S
HIGHWAY
Evaluate exlsllng No Passing Zones on Slale Hlghwavs + - Route 27 & Route 114
- --
Bypass route use Is a concern ++ - UNIFIED DESIRE; LIMITED BY-PASS ARO
- - --
"
Speeding Vehicles + - INCREASED 'ENFORCEMENT OF SPEED LAW/S-- -(
- -
excessive delays entering Roule 27 DURING PEAK SEASONAL PERIOD/S
-, + -
..-- -
Need lell turn lanes on Route 27 at cellaln locatlo,ns ' ,
+ - APPLAUD PROPOSED RT 27/STEPHEN HAND'S P
- - - --
Lack 01 shoulders
- - - --
No widening of exisllng roads + - ONLY TO ACCOMODATE LEF1'-TIJRN LANE/S.
--- ,- - - ----
No addlllonallralllc signals on Roule 27 ++ - YES; RT 27 & TOILSOME LANE INTERSECT! N
~ - ~ ~ = ~:=.
FERrW
Concerned with potenllallraflic genaraled by proposed ++ - OPPOSED TO EITHER MONTAUK OR SAG HARB R
ferry to Napeague/Montauk -- - --
Concerned with potenllallrallic generated by proposed ++ - SEE ABOVE
ferry 10 Sag Harbor ,
o 3
VILLAGE
Exsisting)
ATH DOT PLAN
(FULL SIGNAL)
1 I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NEEDS AND CONCERNS
INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF EAST HAHl'TON
KEY: ~ Not Discussed
--:j:""" supported
++ Slrongly Supporlad
,
,
"-- - - - -_.- REMARKS
RAIL
Improve condillons. frequency and scheduling of ++ _ STRONG SUPPORT (NEW RR/STATION OUTSID
axlsllng sarvlce to New York Clly TO ABSORB PO'l'ENTIAL INCREASED RAIr" PA m,
- -..- - -..- -
Need for betler service wilhln South Fork +
Coordinate rail and bus service -
++ _ INTERFACE BUS/RAIL SCHEDULES TO HIGHE
I TOWN AII'iI'ORT -=
No growth In air service + - NO INCREASE IN PRESENT SCHEDULED AIRLI E
BUS - - ~ - -" - -
Establish vear-round service to Montauk APPLAUD FACT THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED
1- - --
More fraquent bus service/coordinate with employment; +
L1RR. Jitney Sarvlce - - - --
Bailer pUbllcllY of bus schedules " +
--- - - --
establish long-Ienn parking al Jilney slops STRONG OPPOSITION BY REPORTING CONSORTIUM
TAXIS -
sarvlce, Incudlng fares, should ba regulated MEDIOCRE RESPONSE; GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT R I:GI
INC. VILLAGE
ONAGE)
DEGREE
ACCOMODATION
ULATE
2013
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
,"
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NEEDS AND CONCERNS
INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF EAST HAMPTON:'
KEY: ~ Not DlscU9sed ,
,+ Supported.
+ + Strongly Supported
.
.
,
,
.
" REMARKS
BIKES/ROLLERBLADERSIPEDESTRIANS
SafelY concerns alonn exlsllng roadways ++
1- --
Need bike oalhs +
- - - -'
Build/extend 'Safely Palhs' Dr sidewalks +
EMERGENCY SERV~CES ++ EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES SUFFE f\
Congestion on Route 27 causes delays/use 01 bypasses "SEASON, " QUESTION ,RAISED, 'DEFINE;USE
DELAYS DURING
OF "BYPASSES',"
3013
.
.
Ton 01' EAST BAKPTO.
TRMISPORTATIO. PLAII UP-DATB
OUTLIIIB 01' PRES.-TATXO.S I'OR
CITIZ"S ADVISORY COMKl:TTBBS
I. Purpose of project
.
A.
B.
Update of 1966 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Development of Short- and Long-Term Recommendations for
Improvements in ALL Modes of Transportation (Auto, rail,
bus, ferry, air, bicycle, pedestrian)
.
II. CUrrent status - Identification of Problems
A. Field-Data Collection (Traffic counts) began in August
1996 (Exhibit)
.
1.
2.
General Trends - Traffic Growth on Montauk Highway
General Trends - Traffic Growth Elsewhere
B. Traffic Accident History/Development of "High Accident
Locations" (Exhibit)
.
C.
Data Analysis is continuing
D. proposed Montauk Ferry (Montauk C.A.C.) - Will examine
potential impact of proposed ferry on highway network.
No results yet.
.
III. Public Input Through:
A. Citizens Advisory Committees Format
.
1-
2.
3.
Perceived Transportation Concerns
Potential Feasible Solutions
Input Only on Major Concerns to Develop Board-Based
Solutions
IV. Project Schedule
.
A.
B.
Report to Town Board - April 1997
Timetable for Funding/Implementation of Recommendations
V. Receive Comments from those Present (Flip Board)
.
RGD:efr
11/27/96
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NEEDS AND CONCERNS
KEY: ~ Not Discussed
+ Supported
++ Strongly Supported
S A
W A M
A G A
M S I G
0 P N H A
N R S A N
T I C R S
A N 0 B E
U G T 0 T
K S T R T REMARKS
HIGHWAY
Evaluate existina No-Passing Zones on State Hiohwavs ++ ++ ++ Saa Harbor - Route 114; Route 27 - Elsewhere
Bypass route use is a concern + ++ ++ ++ In Wainscott, trucks bypass police check-points. Sag Harbor
desires "traffic calmina" measures.
Speeding Vehicles ++ ++ ++ ++ +
Excessive delays entering Route 27 + ++ ++ + Springs comments refer to return trips from EH Village
Need left turn lanes on Route 27 at certain locations ++ + +
Lack of shoulders ++
No widening of existing roads ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Maintain "rural characte~' of East Hampton
No additional traffic signals on Route 27 ++ ++
FERRY
Concerned with potential traffic generated by-proposed ++ ++ ++
ferlV to Naoeaaue/Montauk
Concerned with potential traffic generated by proposed ++ ++ Disagreement in Sag Harbor regarding passenger-only ferry
ferry to Sag Harbor
10f3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NEEDS AND CONCERNS
KEY: ~ Not Discussed
+ Supported
++ Strongly Supported
S A
W A M
A G A
M S I G
0 P N H A
N A S A N
T I C A S
A N 0 B E
U G T 0 T
K S T A T REMAAKS
RAIL
Improve cond~ions, frequency and scheduling of ++ ++ ++ + +
existino service to New York C~
Need for better service w~hin South Fork ++ ++ +
Coordinate rail and bus service ++ ++ ++ ++
IUWN AIRPORT
No growth in air service ++
BUS
Establish vear-round service to Montauk ++
More frequent bus service/coordinate w~h employment; ++ ++ ++ ++ Trolley to beach (Wainscott), hub/lransfer center (Sag Harbor)
LIAR, Jitnev Service
Belter publicilv of bus schedules ++ +
Establish long-tenn parking at J~ney stops +
TAXIS
Service, incuding lares, should be regulated ++ ++ Fonnal "axi stands' (Wainscott)
20f3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NEEDS AND CONCERNS
KEY: ~ Not Discussed
+ Supported
+ + Strongly Supported
S A
W A M
A G A
M S I G
0 P N H A
N R S A N
T I C R S
A N 0 B E
U G T 0 T
K S T R T REMARKS
BIKESIROLLERBlADERSIPEDESTRIANS
SafelY concerns alonQ existino roadways ++ ++ ++ ++
Need bike paths ++ ++ ++
Build/extend 'Safety Paths' or sidewalks ++ ++
EMERGENCY SERVICE:;
Congestion on Route 27 causes delays/use of bypasses ++ ++ ++
30f3
.
.
.
.
.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION STUDY/PLAN UPDATE
MONTAUK CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MONTAUK SCHOOL - 12/2/96
Ray DiBiase addressed the audience pursuant to the attached
presentation outline dated November 27, 1996.
Comments:
.
.L..
Public Transportation - Bus Service
A.
.
B.
.
.
Residents would like to see a more reliable and
convenient year-round local service from Bridgehampton to
Montauk. This would also compliment the Jitney and
Hamptons On My Mind service from Manhattan which does not
guarantee service from Bridgehampton east during off-peak
travel. (It was requested that NYSDOT be contacted
regarding guaranteed service under its regulation of the
private bus service).
Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee would like to see
bus stop for Jitney and Hamptons on My Mind relocated
from existing spot (gazebo) to Kirk Park area. Poor
sight distance when parked on Main Street in front of
gazebo. Note: Gail Webb (MVA) does not like Kirk Park
location, but feels MVA concerns (lighting, telephone)
could be mitigated.
C. Provide bus service that could be utilized by high school
students participating in extra curricular activities.
(East Hampton to Montauk)
D.
.
Railroad station as possible bus stop for Jitney and
Hamptons On My Mind.
~ Public Transportation - Railroad
A. Provide a light rail system from Southampton to Montauk
with a more frequent and convenient schedule.
.
B. Improve existing service from Manhattan (greater
frequency, more cars, cleaner cars, improve riding
condi tions ) .
.
~ Alternative Means of Transportation - Bicycles
A. If bike racks in downtown area were provided that
guaranteed security from theft or vandalism, more people
would ride their bikes.
.
.
.
B.
!..,. Ferrv
.
A.
B.
.
Poor riding conditions along Old West Lake Drive, East
Lake Drive and Old Montauk Highway.
Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee wants to see a
thorough analysis of the traffic that a high speed
ferry would generate, and its impact on the capacity of
the roadway system.
Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee feels that a ferry
would cause Montauk to be a "funnel" for vehicle traffic
heading to Connecticut (casino's).
C. Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee is concerned with
the technology of high speed ferries possibly from
Manhattan to Montauk.
.
D.
E.
.
Montauk Citizen's
ferries are an
transportation.
Advisory Committee does
acceptable alternative
not feel
mode of
Try to get traffic count data on the North Fork to
determine the impact of the existing passenger ferry
operation at Orient Point.
F. Six (6) month extension on moratorium for a ferry
terminal.
.
.h
Existinq Road Conditions and Traffic Devices
A. Intersection of Old Montauk Highway, Second House Road
and Montauk Highway.
.
.
B.
.
1.
Poor sight distance for vehicles heading east onto
Montauk Highway from Old Montauk Highway. Montauk
Citizen's Advisory Committee feels east extension of
Second House Road should not permit left hand turns.
In general, recommends that this intersection be re-
evaluated and the signage changed from "yields" to
"stops" where applicable.
Install four-way stop control at West Lake and Flamingo
Avenues or stop southbound traffic. (Traffic travelling
along Flamingo should have the right-of-way.) Some
vehicles on West Lake Drive stop even though they have
the right-of-way. In general, recommend improvements to
this intersection.
C. Southerly end of Flamingo Avenue and Main Street Circle
needs improvements and definition at this intersection.
.
.
.
D. Jack Perna, Supt. of Montauk Schools - Flooding condition
at West Lake Drive and South Fulton Street.
E.
Establish "No Passing Zones" along segments of Napeague
stretch and Main Street, due to entering and exiting
traffic from motels and restaurants. In addition, there
should be no passing on Montauk Highway through the
Montauk business district.
.
~ Unacceptable Improvements and Recommendations
.
A.
Maintain
Montauk.
lanes.
the rural character and quality of life of
No traffic signals or increase in traffic
B. Speed along Old Montauk Highway and Flamingo Avenue
excessive (recommend enforcement).
.
C.
Commercial vehicles parking in residential
(recommend enforcement).
areas
D. "No Passing" on Old Montauk Highway exists (recommend
enforcement) .
.
~ Miscellaneous
A. Report should include traffic analysis on the proposed
development of Lions Field.
.
B. Report should include and will address noise and air
pOllution relating to traffic.
C. Montauk Citizen's Advisory Committee review of report
prior to adoption by Town Board.
.
D.
Transportation to the nearest hospital (Southampton) is
a problem.
.
.
.
.
.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION STUDY/PLAN UPDATE
SPRINGS CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
ASBAWAGH BALL - 12/3/96
.
Raymond DiBiase addressed the audience pursuant to the presentation
outline for citizens Advisory Committees.
COMMENTS
1. Public Transportation - Bus Service
.
A.
B.
.
Similar to the other Advisory Committees in the Town, the
residents in Springs would like to see a more reliable
and convenient year-round local bus service.
The bus service presently provides a route
East Hampton Village at 4:40 PM and 6:20 PM.
Citizens Advisory Committee (SCAC) feels
service is also needed.
that leaves
The Springs
a 5:15 PM
C. Jitney bus service and County bus service should be
coordinated and scheduling revised accordingly. Schedule
information should be better publicized.
.
D.
Speeding buses have been observed on Three Mile Harbor
Road.
2. Public Transportation - Lona Island Rail Road
.
A.
.
Improve existing service from Manhattan and from East
Hampton to Manhattan (greater frequency, more cars,
improve riding conditions). Note: Existing 6:00 AM
service from East Hampton to Manhattan arrives at Jamaica
at approximately 8: 45 AM. If you need to be in Manhattan
by 8:00 AM, this is a problem.
3.
Public Transportation - Taxi Service
A.
.
currently, two to three taxi companies exist in the Town.
Our company's prices from Springs to the Village of East
Hampton are expensive at :t $8.00 (off season, $12 in
season) for a one-way fare; however, the service is very
reliable. If possible, residents would like to see some
control over prices.
4. Alternative Means of Transportation - Bicvcles
.
A.
.
SCAC feels bicycles are an acceptable alternative means
of transportation; however, expressed concern with
existing road conditions and in that they do not
accommodate bicycles (narrow road widths, no shoulder
area) .
.
Residents have experienced bicyclists who are riding on
the wrong side of the road and sidewalks. The "rules of
the road" are not being followed. SCAC recommends some
form of an education on the "rules of the road" for
bicyclists, roller-bladers, etc.
.
B.
.
C.
Residents feel bike paths and lanes need to be provided
and/or up-graded.
5. Existina Road Conditions and Traffic Devices
.
A. Sidewalks ("Safety Paths")
.
2.
3.
.
.
B.
Roads
1.
.
2.
.
3.
.
.
1.
SCAC favors sidewalks and would like to see further
improvements along Gardiners Avenue, Fort Pond
Boulevard and Springs Fireplace Road. In addition,
maintenance of existing deteriorated sidewalk on
Springs Fireplace Road are needed.
PTA of Springs School would like to see sidewalk
improvements along Springs Fireplace Road that
connect Fort Pond Boulevard to Ashawagh Hall.
Comments about sidewalk (safety path) along Three
Mile Harbor Road were discussed. This improvement-
was proposed approximately two years ago and was
shot down by residents who live along the proposed
route. Subsequently, the SCAC is in favor of this
safety path.
SCAC made note of the lane width of Three Mile
Harbor Road, Neck Path, Springs Fireplace Road, Fort
Pond Boulevard and Old Stone Highway. They feel
these roads are narrow with no cleared shouJ.der
area. The conditions constitute poor sight distance
and grading problems (drop-offs, banks). They would
like to see more trimming and pruning along these
road sides to optimize sight distance.
Asphalt overlays on Springs Fireplace Road and Old
Stone Highway have resulted in a drop-off along the
edge of pavement. They would like to see the
shoulder areas filled and regraded.
Road realignment including curve banking, along
Three Mile Harbor Road north of the Harbor was
performed by the Highway Department (Bowne Design).
Residents would like to see this section
reconstructed.
.
C. Intersect10ns
SCAC feels the existing yield sign at the end of
Parson Lane and Old stone Highway should be switched
to a stop sign.
Washington street (Maidstone Market) and its
intersection with Three Mile Harbor Road should have
a stop sign installed.
E. Drainage
.
.
D.
.
.
.
1. SCAC expressed concerns with the following
intersections:
Newtown Lane, Montauk Highway and North Main street.
Revco site and East Hampton Post Office (illegal
left turns from Revco).
Accabonac Road, Neck Path and Old stone Highway
(alignment/stop sign placement).
Fort Pond Boulevard at Three Mile Harbor Road (sight
distance is restricted).
Montauk Highway at Fithian Lane (cannot make left
turn into Fithian Lane).
Signage
1.
2.
1.
SCAC noted ponding conditions and drainage concerns
along Fort Pond Boulevard, Springs Fireplace Road
west side (north of Fort Pond Boulevard) and School
Street - east exit.
6. Acceptable Improvements and Recommendations
SCAC would like to see the addition of turning lanes
where applicable, especially along Montauk Highway. It
is difficult for traffic to make lefts on Montauk Highway
from the north when heading east, particularly when
returning to Springs.
Speeding occurs along Three Mile Harbor Road, Talmage
Farm Lane, Springs Fireplace Road, Flaggy Hole Road, Fort
Pond Boulevard and at Maidstone Park (recommend
enforcement) .
7. Miscellaneous
.
A.
.
B.
.
A.
B.
.
VAG:efr
.
Report should include comments and recommendations of
emergency service groups. Emergency response time is
constrained by traffic congestion in the summer.
Review parking along School Street and springs Fireplace
Road in the general vicinity of School Street (service
station area.).
.
L. K. McLean Associates, P. C.
.
.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN OP-DATE
WAINSCOTT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
WAINSCOTT CHAPEL
DECEMBER 7, 1996
A broad presentation was made to the Committee, folloWing the CAC
outline presentation:
.
Summary of issues discussed:
Route 27 Business Area
.
.
4.
.
5.
.
6.
.
7.
.
1.
"Highway strip" area subject to high number of accidents and
speeds due to commercial development. Lower speed limit (30
mph) is supported and enforcement was suggested, although it
was stated that this may increase bypass traffic. Concerned
about number of high accident locations in Wainscott, compared
with remainder of Town.
2. Bus operations and parking maneuvers conflict with thru
traffic flow.
3.
Avoid installation of traffic signals on Route 27, would
encourage more bypass traffic.
Some passing maneuvers occur wi thin the two-way left turn
lane. The seafood shop just east of Wainscott-Northwest Road
is busy, and left turn vehicles block the eastbound thru lane
because there is an exclusive westbound left turn lane at this
point.
The CAC had requested an exclusive right turn lane on
northbound Wainscott-Northwest Road approaching Route 27; a
shared thru/right turn lane was installed. This results in
right turning vehicles "cutting through" the post office
parking area as thru vehicles wait for gaps in traffic.
The eXisting westbound bus cut-out at Treasure Island does not
appear wide enough. Buses stopping at the pizza shop block
sight distance. There was favorable reaction to installation
of a bus cut out at the pizza shop. Relocation of the bus
stop to the overflow parking field on the west side of
Wainscott-Northwest Road, north of Route 27, was discussed.
Possible need for pedestrian crossing guard for pedestrians to
cross Route 27, near post office and jitney stop.
8. Need to improve circulation between parking lots in the area.
.
.
L. K. McLean Associates, pc.
.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Bypass Routes
.
.
4.
.
.
1.
Wainscott Stone Road is the eastern bypass connection to Route
27 to avoid back-ups in Bridgehampton, due to downtown area
congestion, and the traffic signal at the Caldor Shopping
Center. The CAC requested that Southampton Town be advised of
this, and that overall transportation efforts be coordinated
with Southampton.
2.
Consider extending Industrial Road to Town Line Road to
provide an alternative to Route 27.
3. Excessive speeding in summer. Enforcement has been good, and
is necessary.
Sayres Path has become an unofficial truck note. The existing
crown on this road is a concern.
5. Trucks bypass State and Town police check-points on Route 27.
6. Consider "speed humps" to control speeds.
Airport
.
1. The CAC was formed in 1983 in response to concerns over the
Town's airport. Any proposed development should be limited,
so as not to cause an increase in air traffic.
2. The number of take-offs and landings should be limited.
Rail
.
1.
Provide local rail transit between hamlets.
2. Provide public transportation (e.g. bus) from rail stations to
downtown areas.
3.
.
Reliability of LIRR service needs improvement, e.g. better
scheduling and frequency of trains. Addi tional eastbound
Friday express service is desired.
Ferries
.
1.
Against proposed ferry to Montauk, due to potential traffic
increases.
2. Concerned about Sag Harbor ferry for same reason.
.
.
L. K. McLean Associates, P.c.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
.
Bus Service
1. (See Route 27 Business Area and Rail sections).
2.
Consider establishment of long-term parking areas at Jitney
stops.
.
3. Could provide trolley service from remote parking areas to
beaches, but not to Wainscott Beach, which has no facilities.
.
Bikes/Rollerbladers
1. Concerned with rollerbladers skating abreast, particularly on
Wainscott Stone Road.
2. Bike paths are needed.
.
Miscellaneous
1. Consider livery service from bars to homes late at night.
.
.
.
.
.
RGD:efr
1/16/97
.
.
L. K. McLean Associates, P. C.
.
.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UP-DATE
SAG HARBOR VILLAGE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
(CAC is part of Coalition of Neighborhood Preservation
of Sag Harbor "CONPOSH")
VILLAGE HALL - JANUARY 6, 1997
Raymond DiBiase addressed the audience pursuant to the presentation
outlined for Citizens Advisory Committees.
COMMENTS:
.
.h
General
A.
.
With respect to traffic counts undertaken by this study,
CONPOSH indicated that recent traffic counts have been
taken for the Route 114 bridge area and Jermain Avenue by
the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
and CONPOSH/Sag Harbor Police, respectively.
~ Public Transportation - Bus Service
A.
.
B.
.
Similar to the other Advisory Committees in the Town, the
residents in Sag Harbor would like to see a more reliable
and convenient year-round local service. Service should
be expanded in the summer, both with additional buses and
later in the day.
Train Service, Jitney Bus Service and County bus service
should be coordinated and scheduling revised accordingly.
Schedule information should be better publicized.
C. Consider establishing a hub/transfer point in the
Village.
D.
.
If passenger-only ferry is considered, bus service to the
ferry is desirable.
~ Public Transportation - Lonq Island Rail Road
A. CONPOSH feels Long Island Rail Road is on a decline with
respect to future use.
.
h
Public Transportation - Ferries
A.
.
.
CONPOSH as well as the Sag Harbor Village Trustees have
seen an attempt by developers to provide passenger
ferries from Manhattan and Connecticut to Sag Harbor.
Some residents feel passenger ferries are a positive idea
due to the reduction of vehicles coming to Sag Harbor;
however, other disagree. The problem with ferries is
that one could expect services to expand to car ferries
and cruises (gambling operations) which would increase
vehicle volumes and be detrimental to the community.
.
L. K. McLean Associates, P.c.
.
B.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Automobile ferries are unacceptable.
C. There is an existing "cruise" service from the Village to
Greenport, which travels up the Connecticut River.
.
~
Existinq Road Conditions and Traffic Devices
A.
.
B.
.
.
.
C.
Sidewalks Sidewalks exist along NYS Route 114.
However, sidewalk terminates at Jermain Avenue and
Hempstead Street. CONPOSH feels sidewalks should be
extended further south along Route 114 to Lincoln Street
(Village Boundary Line). Safety is a concern for
pedestrians walking in the shoulder area of the road.
Roads - The NYS Route 114 corridor is the greatest
concern of CONPOSH. Problems include speed, weight and
volume of vehicles.
The specific location of transitions of speed limits from
55 to 40 to 35 mph on Route 114 should be reviewed.
Consider lowering 35 mph speed to 25 mph. Begin speed
reduction south of Village at Swamp Road. Establishment
of additional no passing zones should be investigated,
particularly between Lincoln Street and Jermain Avenue.
CONPOSH fees improvements or devices should be
implemented along NYS Route 114 to deter vehicles from
traveling in the shoulder area (bumps, grooves, etc.),
particularly between East Hempstead Street and Hillside
Drive, where pedestrians and bicyclists use the shoulder.
Concern with alignment on Route 114 (crest, horizontal
curve) near Hillside Drive.
.
~ Acceptable Improvements and Recommendations
A.
.
B.
.
.
CONPOSH does not want major improvements (bypass routes,
widenings) that will negatively impact the aesthetics and
rural character of Sag Harbor Village. Improvements
should be small scale and promote safety for pedestrians
and local vehicle traffic.
CONPOSH recommends that improvements should be performed
along NYS Route 114 at the gateway (old "toll gate" area)
to the Village (JeWish Cemetery). The residents feel a
monument should be constructed and the speed limit
reduced. The monument could serve as a "calming"
measure. CONPOSH feels the "funneling" of traffic into
the Village. would slow down vehicles 1 speed. Other
"traffic calming" measures to reduce speeds in the
Village are desirable.
.
L. K. McLean Associates, pc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
.
L
Zoninq
A.
CONPOSH feels by changing the zoning from Commercial
Industrial (C.r.) to A3 residential or possibly less
intensive (A1 Residential) could increase traffic volumes
(more houses, more cars).
.
~ Accident Data
.
A. CONPOSH would like the report data for accidents to
include time of day (day/night) and extent of damages
incurred.
~ Enforcement
A.
CONPOSH feels further enforcement of speed and weight
should be performed on NYS Route 114. Village
enforcement is hindered by the lack of a local Justice of
the Peace; officers must travel elsewhere for court
appearances.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RGD:efr
1/13/97
.
.
L. K. McLean Associates, P.c.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
.
.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UP-DATE
AMAGANSETT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
AMAGANSETT SCHOOL
JANUARY 13, 1997
.
A brief presentation was made to the committee, following the CAC
presentation outline. Summary of issues discussed:
Route 27
1. Need for no-passing zone in Bluff Road/Cranberry Hole Road to
Surf Drive area.
.
2.
Need left turn lane at post office and laundromat in business
district.
3.
Concern about speeds on Route 27, have requested that NYSDOT
lower speed limit. Farmer's Market activity (slowing,
parking) may help keep speeds down.
.
4.
Congestion on Route 27 has led to the
becoming bypasses, with significant summer
speeds:
following routes
volumes and high
.
Skimhampton Road
Further Lane
Bluff Road
.
Discouraging use of these routes is desirable. There is
concern that future development may significantly worsen this
situation. (It was explained that traffic growth based on
future land use will be addressed in the Transportation Plan.)
5. Left turns from Hedges Lane subject to sight distance
restriction due to parked vehicles. Consider left turn
prohibition.
.
6. Consider formal "pedestrian environment" in business district,
i. e. centralized parking wi thin walking distance of
businesses.
7.
Intersection with Barns Lane (east of Newtown Lane) in the
Village of East Hampton is a concern, particularly with back-
ups due to eastbound left turns.
.
8. Excessive delays and poor sight distance to the east, for
vehicles exiting the municipal parking area on north side of
Route 27 in the summer.
.
.
L. K. McLean Associates, P.c.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
.
EmerQency Services
1.
Two traffic control officers in Bridgehampton facilitate
emergency vehicle passage by stopping traffic on Route 27 -
why not do the same in Amagansett? This could be done by
training existing TeQ's.
.
Ferry
.
1.
Against new ferry to Montauk or Napeauge due to potential
traffic increases. (Cross Sound Ferry Company has apparently
identified Napeague as the most likely terminal site.)
Taxi
.
1.
Address need for regUlation of fares and service.
establish fixed fares by zone.
Could
2. Need formal "taxi stands".
.
RollerbladinQ. JOQQers. Bicyclists
1. Concern with extensive rollerblading, jogging and bicycling in
pavement area on Further Lane.
.
Bicycles
1. Support for bike routes; Bluff Road (100' right-of-way width
in many areas) could be a candidate location for a bicycle
path. Further Lane also has significant bicycle use.
.
Rail
1. If a shuttle service is established, would require parking at
Amagansett. Existing station parking lot is small.
.
Miscellaneous
1. Consider mandating reduced use of cars.
.
RGD:efr
1/17/96
.