HomeMy WebLinkAboutN F Recreational Travel Needs Assessment - Prelim Potential SolutionsNorth Fork Recreational Travel Needs
Assessment
Preliminary Potential Solutions
Apri120t12
Prepared for:
New York State Department of Transportation
Task 7, Subtask 7.7
Prepared by:
DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, PC
ABRAMS-CHERWONY & ASSOCIATES
ENG-WONG TAUB
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
JAC PLANNING
1
1
t
1
LITP 2000
Moving People, Moving Goods
Subtask 7.7 Nortb Fork Recreational Travel Needs Analyses
Table of Contents
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 2
2. POTENTIAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM SOLUTIONS ..................................... 5
3. POTENTIAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT SOLUTIONS ................................ 8
4. POTENTIAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS ...................... 12
5. POTENTIAL FERRY SOLUTIONS ............................................................ 21
6. ACCESS MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ......................................................... 23
WHB\LITP200P94036
File: Preliminary Solutions\TechMemo.doc
1
' 1. Introduction
' Under PIN 0804.89, the Long Island Transportation Plan to Manage Congestion (latown as LTTP
2000), subtask 7, the North Fork Transportation Study was intended to provide an evaluation of
the special transportation needs of the rural, primazily recreational North Fork of Long Island.
t As shown in Figure 1.1, the study area covered is that portion of Long Island beginning at the
easterly terminus of the Long Island Expressway (LIE), north of the Peconic River in the Town
of Riverhead, and extending eastwazd to the Orient Point Terminal Facility for the Cross Sound
' Feny, in eastern Southold Town, and also including Shelter Island. A Technical Advisory Group
(TAG) consisting of representatives from the Towns of Riverhead, Southold and Shelter Island,
the Village of Greenport, the Long Island Rail Road, Suffolk County Transit and the New York
' State Department of Transportation provided guidance to the study. Suggested strategies for
improvements to the local transportation system in this document reflect input from the TAG and
from the public through the Local Agency/Stakeholder Participation Program conducted for the
' study. An effort has been made to incorporate input from all involved parties. During the course
of the study process, some of the involved agencies expressed concerns regarding the feasibility
and desirability of some of the proposals. It is noted that the TAG recommended that no ideas or
' proposal be denied consideration, and suggested solutions proposed in this document have not
undergone any analysis regarding economic or engineering feasibility.
' Recently, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) designated a consultant
team to begin the Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) initiative, aconsensus-
building process intended to link land use and transportation planning decisions for the five East
' End Long Island towns, including the North Fork Transportation Study area. Therefore, it was
decided that strategies for improvements to the local transportation system developed during the
course of the North Fork study would serve as input to the SEEDS process. In this manner, the
' SEEDS process, being administered by the East End Transportation Council (EETC) and
NYMTC, will be provided with a comprehensive examination of the capacities, demands and
highway safety deficiencies of the transportation system on the North Fork, establishing a sound
' basis for decision-making with regard to future strategies for the communities therein. It is
through the SEEDS process that the feasibility of these strategies from the standpoint of
' economic and engineering considerations will be determined. Simulation modeling and analysis
planned under SEEDS is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of these recommendations in
improving the transportation system within the five East End Towns, in a sustainable manner.
Three main east-west thoroughfares serve the study azea, NYS Route 25, Suffolk County Road
58, and the combination of Sound Avenue and Suffolk County Road 48. County Road 58
' extends from the easterly LIE terminus to a point just west of County Road 105 where it rejoins
NYS Route 25, a distance of approximately 3 miles. East of CR 105, the two routes, that is, Rt.
25 and CR 48/Sound Avenue, essentially run pazallel to each other out to the Village of
t Greenport, where CR 48 ends. From that point, only Rt. 25 provides service further east. CR 58
was originally constructed to serve as a bypass route around downtown Riverhead, where the
main road, Rt. 25, had become congested. However, considerable development has occurred
' along CR 58 in recent years, and traffic volumes now exceed those found on either Rt. 25 or CR
48.
1
WHB\ LrfP 2000-94036 2
t File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc
~ ~ ~ 1~
~~ ~
W ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
~~~~~~ ~ ~
Q~~~~ ~ ~ o
~ ~
0
g
E
0
_.~ ~' ~I.
c~
,.`l r'
3
~'•
ro
.ti'x. -- ~, ,-
S; _.
sHS~t::x'S': ~ ~.. -.wry
~~
H
H
f
J
Q
W
Q
~.
Z~~-~
~S
1
0
H
b
~~
~
~~
l'
s
The Long Island Rail Road's Ronkonkoma Branch provides service to the study azea, operating
three weekday and two Saturday and Sunday roundtrips as faz east as Greenport. The service is
' provided by diesel locomotive, as the Ronkonkoma Branch is non-electrified east of
Ronkonkoma. Ridership on these trains was found to be very low, likely due in part to the
limited service provided, as well as low density development patterns and the orientation of
North Fork travel
The S-8A, 5-62, S-90 and S-92 bus routes operated by Suffolk County Transit also serve the
' study area. The S-92 provides approximately hourly service between Orient Point and East
Hampton, with some buses going only as faz east as Greenport. In addition, the 5-192, an
express bus service operated by Sunrise Coach Lines, is a premium all reserved express bus route
' that provides service between Greenport and New York City. The number of trips varies
depending on the season and day of week. Since it is a reservation-based service, additional
units aze sometimes placed in service if needed. Ridership was found to be fairly high for this
service.
Three ferry routes serve the study azea, one operating between Orient Point and New London,
' CT, the second between the Village of Greenport and Shelter Island, and the third provides
passenger-only service to Plum Island for employees of the government facilities located there.
The New London service, which transports both passengers and vehicles, attracts travelers from
points as faz west as Manhattan, seeking to circumvent congestion on the I-95 corridor, as well as
travelers heading to and from Long Island's South Fork. The Greenport to Shelter Island service,
which also transports passengers and vehicles, is one of only two means of travel to and from
Shelter Island, the second being the ferry service connecting the south side of the Island to North
Haven, a community located on the north shore of the South Fork. Many users traveling between
' New England and East Hampton utilize all three ferries, arriving or departing Long Island via
Orient Point, and using Shelter Island and the two ferries as a "bridge" to and from the east end
of the South Fork. A study conducted by the operator of the North Ferry also indicated that a
' significant number of travelers between western Long Island including NYC and the east end of
the South Fork aze also using the Shelter Island "bridge" route. This "bridge" traffic has become
a major source of displeasure for residents of eastern Southold Town and Shelter Island, as they
perceive no benefit to their communities as a result, while experiencing the traffic generated by
this activity. In addition, the recent implementation of high speed passenger-only ferry service
from Orient Point to New London, primarily to serve the casinos operating in New England, has
' added to the perception that little or no benefit accrues to the North Fork due to the ferry
operation, in that ferry patrons aze not likely to utilize the North Fork for recreational purposes.
' It should be noted that no specific suggestions have been made for physical infrastructure
changes to CR 58 or to CR 48. This is due to the fact that there is a current Suffolk County effort
that will implement improvements to CR 48, and the County intends to solicit proposals for a
' comprehensive analysis of the CR 58 corridor in the neaz future. Improvement strategies for
these two roadway corridors prior to the completion of these studies were not included in this
study to avoid redundancy of effort and needless expenditure of resources. However, where
appropriate, these roadways have been included in discussions of system or region-wide
strategies. The following sections of this report present the potential solutions proposed for
evaluation under the auspices of SEEDS.
WHB\ L17'P 2000-94036 4
File: Preliminary Sotutions\ TechMemo.doc
1
ll
1
1
2. Potential Highway System Solutions
Based on the results of the comprehensive data collection program performed for this study, it
was determined that peak demand on the North Fork transportation system occurred between the
hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM on Saturdays during the month of July. In recent years, the
North Fork has become an increasingly popular tourist and second home destination during the
Fall season as well, when the vineyazds aze completing their harvests and producing their wine,
and farm stands aze busy with customers preparing for the oncoming holiday season. Irt fact,
review of the traffic data indicates that Sundays in October represent the second busiest day of
the yeaz. Overwhelmingly, automobiles are the transportation mode of choice for travelers in the
study azea, be they residents or visitors. During this peak period, recurrent traffic congestion is
evident on most of CR 58 due to the presence of considerable retail and commercial
development there, most notably the Tanger Factory Outlet Center at the extreme western end of
the study azea. Considerable congestion also occurs in the eastbound direction as vehicles make
their way to the vineyazds, wineries, motels, summer homes, etc. located in the eastern portion of
the study azea. East of CR 105, congestion is limited to the hamlet azeas on Main Road, with
sporadic slowdowns caused by side friction from farmstands with little or no off-sheet pazking
and no formal curb cuts or driveways. Through traffic destined to Shelter Island and the Cross
Sound Ferry Terminal in Orient Point both contributes to and is hindered by this congestion.
Sound Avenue and CR 48 experience little or no congestion. Slow moving traffic is the most
significant impediment to mobility along this mute. During the times when traffic on Rt. 25 is
experiencing considerable difficulty, traffic on CR48 moves at or above designated speed limits.
Notwithstanding the forgoing, a review of the data collected combined with field observations
and input obtained through the public participation program conducted for this study indicates
that, with a few exceptions at specific locations, sufficient capacity is available on the study area
highway system as a whole to accommodate existing demand. Furthermore, seasonal demand
doesn't warrant traditional mitigation strategies that add capacity through the widening of
existing roads or the construction of new ones. In an azea such as the North Fork, any capacity
improvements, such as adding travel lanes, to accommodate seasonal demand would lie unused
during the off-season, significantly reducing the cost-effectiveness of these improvements.
Therefore, it is suggested that a program incorporating systems management and demand
management strategies combined with limited, localized capacity enhancements be considered.
Aspects of the program, which should be considered for inclusion, aze described in the following
paragraphs.
Transportation System Management Approach
The origin-destination survey conducted for this study indicates that many vehicles that originate
west of the study azea such as western Suffolk County, Nassau County and New York City, and
aze destined to the easterly portion of the study azea, including Shelter Island and the Cross
Sound Ferry, utilize Rt. 25 for the entire trip east of CR 105. Some of these drivers may use this
route by choice, for the purpose of sightseeing or stopping at the farm stands, and other
attractions along Rt. 25. However, it is presumed that a significant portion, especially those
destined for Shelter Island and the Cross Sound ferry, use this route because they are not awaze
of any alternative. This traffic is more appropriately served by Sound Avenue/CR 48 as faz east
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 5
File: Reliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc
' as Greenport. This also applies to westbound vehicles with the reverse origins and destinations.
' Therefore, it is suggested that a program be developed which provides motorists the best and
safest route to their destinations. Elements of the program could include:
• "Best Route to..." signing on the roadways throughout the study azea. These signs should
direct eastbound motorists to Greenport, Shelter Island, Orient Point and the Cross Sound
Ferry Terminal via Sound Avenue/CR 48, and to the hamlet azeas via Rt. 25. The
eastbound signs should be placed on CR 58, CR 105 and Rt. 25, with consideration given
to placing an advance sign on the LIE. Eastbound traffic should be directed to use
northbound CR 105 to Northville Turnpike to Sound Avenue. Westbound signs should
direct motorists to the LIE and Sunrise Highway via CR 48/Sound Avenue, then to
Northville Turnpike and CR 105 or CR 58 and to the hamlet azeas via Rt. 25.
' • Signs should also be installed on both CR 48 and Rt. 25 at approaches to intersections
with various north-south roadways at which it would be convenient and appropriate to
change from one route to the other. The wording would be similaz, such as `Best Route to
' Orient Point".
• Consideration should be given to deploying variable message signs with appropriate
message sets directing motorists to their preferred routes. Variable message signs are
portable electronic devices on which the message can be changed to reflect conditions.
CR 48 has substantial excess capacity and a well designed, comprehensive signing plan would
help to redirect much of the through traffic from Rt. 25 to CR 48 and Sound Avenue. This would
help to alleviate some of the spot congestion along Rt. 25. In addition, reduction in through
' traffic, particularly traffic trying to reach destinations at a specific time (e.g., ferry traffic), will
create more gaps in traffic on Rt. 25, thereby improving side street access. However, it should be
noted that, in Riverhead Town, Sound Avenue is a two lane, rural scenic roadway. The road is
' lined with old trees and historic homes, farms and farm stands. Tn some cases landscape features
of the homes such as fences and plantings encroach on the Town right-of--way. The mad has
significant horizontal and vertical curvature, which limits stopping sight distances. In 1974, as
part of the 1976 bicentennial celebration, the road was designated a historic corridor by the
Office of State Parks and Historic Preservation.
' In recent years, the road has experienced an increase in traffic volume, in part due to the
increasing popularity of the rural North Fork as a tourist destination, and also due to traffic
seeking to avoid congestion on C.R. 58' and Route 25. What little congestion does occur is
' related to activity at the agriculture-related businesses such as farm stands along the road. Great
caze should be taken in preserving the trees and other landscape features along the mad. Minor
widening and changes to pavement markings could be employed to provide as wide a shoulder as
' possible, thereby allowing room to pass vehicles waiting to turn into side streets or driveways.
The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council is presently considering an application by
the Town of Riverhead for funding a safety improvement project along Sound Avenue between
C.R. 105 and the Southold Town line. This project will provide for the installation of 5-foot
' wide shoulders on either side of the road and resurfacing of the existing pavement. These
W HB\ LITP 2000-94036 6
' File: Reliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc
shoulders will allow bicyclists to use the roadway in a much safer manner. The NYSDOT
supports the project, and funding is under consideration. It is suggested that the possibility of
extending this treatment to the west to Wildwood State Park, and for a short distance in Southold
Town, west of the point where Sound Avenue meets C.R. 48, Southold Town be considered.
This would provide a continuous comdor where bicyclists could safely shaze the road with motor
vehicles.
The following measures should also be considered:
• Provide sepazate left and right turn lanes at appropriate intersections, with
accommodations for bicyclists to negotiate intersections.
• Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Sound Avenue at Northville Turnpike, (CR
43) possibly set for flashing operation during the off-season.
• Require off-street parking for all farmstands and attractions along Sound Avenue, with
defined ingress and egress points. These parking azeas and driveways need not be paved,
however, they aze an important safety enhancement. Pazking on the shoulders in the
vicinity of the driveways should be prohibited.
• Eliminate the traffic circle on CR 58 at Roanoke Avenue, and install a conventional
signalized intersection.
• Increase the capacity of CR 58 by adding one lane in each direction.
' (Note: It is recognized that SCDPW intends to issue a request for proposals for a study of the
CR 58 corridor. It is anticipated that specific capacity enhancements will be recommended in
that study.)
' The above strategy should be considered in combination with improvements to the public
transportation system, suggestions for which are presented in the Public Transportation section
of this report. In addition, certain roadway improvement measures have been developed to
address safety issues that were identified during the safety assessment performed for this study,
as discussed in the following section of this report.
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 7
File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMertp.doc
LI
3. Potential Safety Assessment Solutions
As part of this study, a safety assessment was performed to identify locations in the study area
that exhibited the highest number of traffic related accidents, to determine whether a pattern in
the types accident experienced at those locations exists, and if so, to suggest measures to
improve safety for the traveling public. Figure 3.1 presents the locations of these potential
improvements.
The results of the analysis indicate that many of the accidents occur due to capacity issues, such
as congestion at a signalized intersection, or the lack of a left turn lane or protected left turn
phasing on a traffic signal. In these cases, suggestions for remedial measures have been made
where appropriate. In the case of the fatalities examined, all were found to have occurred due to
driver error or poor driving conditions, such as wet or icy pavement. The following
improvements aze suggested to address the locations identified in the safety assessment. The
Safety Assessment can be found in the study document entitled "Inventory and Existing
Conditions Technical Memorandum."
1. New York State Route 25 (East Main Street) at Suffolk County Route 105 (Cross River
Drive) -Riverhead
• Widen the eastbound approach to increase the storage lengths of the exclusive right-
and left-tom lanes. The left-tom lane is approximately 50 feet long and the right-turn
lane is about 100 feet long. Increasing the storage capacity of these tom lanes would
reduce the number of fuming vehicles queued in the through lane and increase the
overall capacity of the approach.
• Revise the signal timing to increase capacity for this approach.
' 2. NYS Route 25 (East Main Street) at Roanoke Avenue (CR 73) -Riverhead
• Revise the signal timing to provide a longer cleazance interval between the end of the
north/southbound phase and the start of the easUwestbound phase to cleaz northbound
righUleft-fuming traffic before the westbound signal toms green.
• Install a westbound to southbound left-tom arrow to inform motorists when they have
a protected left-turn phase.
3
NYS Route 25 at Court Street / Nugent Drive (County Route 94A) -Riverhead
• Install a protected westbound left tom phase to improve the safety and capacity of this
movement. According to the New York State Department of Transportation
(NI'SDOT) Statewide Accident Reduction estimates, providing a protected left-tom
phase could potentially reduce the number ofleft-turn accidents by 46 percent.
' WHB\ UTP 2000-94036 8
File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc
i
I \ -_~4
~~
`'
~~
...... .r Y~ 5~~~
q~
m
~~
A
Zi[}+~
b
C ~~
~ s
~ _' ~
h
C
_` ~~
a
E
O
1
4. NYS Route 25 (East Main Street) at Ostrander Avenue -Riverhead
• To help prevent rear-end accidents involving vehicles waiting to make left-turns from
Main Street, a dual left-turn lane should be provided to remove these vehicles from
' the through traffic stream along Main Street. The eastern end of the dual left-turn
lane would be used by eastbound left-turning traffic onto Ostrander and the western
end of the left-turn lane would be used by westbound motorists turning left into the
aquarium and gas station. The left-turn lane could be provided within the existing
roadway width since the street is 40-feet wide and curb pazking is prohibited on both
sides of the street. According to NYSDOT Accident Reduction Estimates, adding a
left-turn lane with a painted separation could potentially reduce reaz-end accidents by
39 percent.
' • Install pedestrian crosswalks at the Ostrander Avenue intersection and possibly mid-
block near the entrance to the aquarium. Each crosswalk should have advance
pedestrian crosswalk warning signs and warning signs, located adjacent to the
t crosswalks, with a device on the centerline to facilitate pedestrian mid-block
crossings.
5. Middle Road /North Road (County Route 48) at Wickham Avenue -Southold
Provide an exclusive left-turn phase on CR 48 to further protect the left-turn
movements onto Wickham Avenue.
6. Middle Road at Northville Turnpike (CR 43) -Riverhead
' • Rumble strips and/or "SLOW 'warning pavement mazkings could be installed on the
north and southbound approaches of Northville Turnpike to reduce travel speeds.
7. Sound Avenue at Northville Turnpike (CR 43) -Riverhead
• Install a flashing red/yellow traffic signal. According to NYSDOT accident reduction
estimates, adding a flashing signal could potentially reduce right-angle accidents by
36 percent.
' • Widen Sound Avenue at the intersection to provide a westbound to southbound left
turn lane.
' • Relocate the northbound stop baz. Currently, the stop baz is located approximately 50
feet back from the intersection and should be moved forwazd for two specific safety
' reasons. A stop baz located closer to the intersection would provide for better sight
distances and it would encourage westbound left-turning vehicles to enter the
southbound travel lane without making the observed, shallow (more dangerous) turn
onto Northville Turnpike (Note: This improvement was recently completed by
SCDPW).
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 1
' File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMcmo.doc
• Repaint the pavement markings at the intersection (Note: This improvement was
recently completed by SCDPVI~.
' • Reduce the speed limit in the vicinity of Northville Turnpike from 45 mph to 35 or 40
mph. This lower speed limit would be advisable considering that Sound Avenue has
11- to 12-foot lanes, narrow shoulders (where provided) and several blind driveways
and roadways in the vicinity of this intersection.
' The foregoing is based on the results of the Safety Assessment performed for this study. They do
not represent any significant increases in capacity for any of the study area roadways, rather they
' are intended to present specific measures to address the occurrence of certain accident types at
the locations studied. As such, it is suggested that these measures be implemented in the neaz
term, over the course of the next several years.
n
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 11
' File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc
II
1
4. Potential Public Transportation Solutions
The North Fork is served by a variety of public transportation modes. The MTA Long Island
Rail Road's Ronkonkoma Branch provides service to the North Fork, with stops in Riverhead,
Mattituck, Southold and Greenport. Service on this non-electrified portion of the Ronkonkoma
Branch is limited to three weekday round trips and two round trips on Saturday and Sunday.
Suffolk County Transit serves the azea with the S-92 bus route, which operates between Orient
Point on the North Fork and East Hampton on the South Fork via Riverhead. On the North Fork,
this bus route operates approximately hourly service primarily along State Route 25. Some S-92
trips only operate to and from Greenport.
Suffolk County Transit also serves Riverhead and its surrounding azea with the S-8A bus route,
which functions mainly as a Riverhead circulator route. Several other Suffolk County Transit
bus routes operate between Riverhead and points west and serve to connect the North Fork with
the rest of Suffolk County. These mutes include S-62 which operates between the County
Center in Riverhead and the Hauppauge Industrial Park via N.Y.S. Route 25A, Port Jefferson
and the Nesconset Highway as well as S-90 which operates from the County Center in Riverhead
to Center Moriches via East Quogue, Quogue, Westhampton Beach, Speonk, and East Moriches.
Finally, Sunrise Express operates the S-192 bus route between Greenport and New York City.
The number of daily trips operated along this bus route varies depending upon both the season as
well as the day of the week. This service is a premium all-reserved express bus route that
operates along State Route 25 on the North Fork and utilizes the Long Island Expressway and the
Queens-Midtown Tunnel to access Manhattan. Amore detailed description of the rail and bus
system can be found in the project document entitled "Inventory and Existing Conditions
Technical Memorandum".
As noted from the title of this section, the transit proposals presented here are not recommended
for implementation. Instead, they provide a broad range of rail and bus proposals that have been
suggested for further review and evaluation. Some of the proposals aze quite ambitious and have
been formulated for a long range planning horizon (e.g., 2020). They would require significant
investment and substantial lead time. Other potential transit solutions aze more modest in scale
and more consistent with a neaz term planning period. Moreover, some of the proposals are
mutually exclusive which would suggest the need for a comprehensive evaluation.
' It is recognized that these suggestions (i.e., both neaz and long term) will be studied in detail as
part of the SEEDS initiative. During the analysis, concerns have been raised regarding the
various transit suggestions for a number of reasons:
1 • Sufficient ridership to warrant implementation
• Ability to reduce traffic and congestion levels
• Existing capacity constraints of LIRR
• Magnitude of necessary investment
• Extent of operating assistance
' • Ease of construction
1
WFIB\ LITP 2000-94036 12
File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc
' • Neaz-term and permanent environment impacts
' • Competition for limited transit funds
• Political Support
' In the can-ent analysis, the objective has been to collate, refine and document transit proposals
without analysis of the issues cited above. In this way, the current effort should comprise a
timely input to the SEEDS initiative. By formulating the menu of potential transit solutions,
' SEEDS can subject them to rigorous transportation, economic, land use and environmental
evaluation. Some of the proposals will not prove warranted or feasible while others may show
promise for further analysis by SEEDS. iJltimately, the agencies and participants comprising the
' SEEDS effort will specify a recommended progam of both short and long range transit
proposals for the North Fork. This transit program will be integrated with ongoing activities of
existing service providers and funding agencies.
Long Island Rail Road
During the public outreach effort for this study, numerous suggestions were made with regards to
improving Long Island Rail Road (LIItR) service on the North Fork. Because of the lazger
capital requirements of the LIRR, these alternatives would more properly be considered long-
' range proposals.
The portion of the LIRR's Ronkonkoma Branch east of Ronkonkoma to Riverhead and
Greenport is not electrified. Diesel locomotives in "push-pull" mode aze utilized with new bi-
level coaches along this segment of the L1RR. Passengers traveling between points west of
Ronkonkoma and the North Fork must transfer at that station to a diesel train for service to
Riverhead and the North Fork. For safety and environmental considerations, the LIRR does not
operate diesel locomotives through the East River tunnels to and from Penn Station in
Manhattan.
' The new dual mode fleet that operates into Penn Station has not been assigned to the North Fork
service. For this reason, persons traveling between the North Fork and Manhattan need to
' transfer between trains at Ronkonkoma. Assignment of dual mode equipment to the North Fork
could eliminate this transfer. One concluding point is that the new dual mode fleet will not be
able to utilize the 63'~ Street Tunnel to Grand Central Terminal (i.e., East Side Access) because
of tunnel clearance limitations.
Much of the LIRR's Ronkonkoma Branch east of Ronkonkoma is single track and is "dazk
territory" (i.e., not equipped with signals). For these reasons, the capacity of the LIRR on the
North Fork is limited. This influences train frequencies and the ability to have aone-seat ride.
' The LIRR alternatives that follow vary in the amount of capital investment related to right-of-
way, motive power and other equipment that would be required for their implementation.
A number of proposals could include physical improvements to the LIRR facilities in the North
Fork area and could be comprised of three possible elements: (1) construct double track or
extensive passing sidings; (2) extend electrification east of Ronkonkoma; and (3) fully equip the
WFIB\ LI7P 2000-94036 l3
' File: Preliminary Solutions\TechMemo.doc
L~
~'
Ronkonkoma Branch with signals. A capital program could be formulated that includes some or
all three elements described above. Further, the plans could differ by the extent of facilities with
improvements as far east as Riverhead or Greenport. Four points are worth noting regazding
these types of improvements. First, capital improvements could be paired with operating
alternatives to take advantage of capacity, frequency and speed changes. Second, a wide range
of options is possible. Third, the physical and operating proposals could be implemented in an
incremental or staged fashion. Finally, such improvements aze ambitious and would need
significant funding and lead time to be accomplished.
Hourlv Service to Riverhead
One proposal is to operate more trains between Riverhead and Manhattan. The present limited
level of service would continue to be provided between Riverhead and Greenport. Service
between Riverhead and Manhattan could be operated on an hourly basis on weekdays and every
two hours on weekends. This alternative would allow people on the North Fork to travel to
Riverhead by whatever mode they prefer and then boazd a relatively frequent westbound train
without having to transfer at Ronkonkoma. Through service via Ronkonkoma could be provided
either by electrifying the LIRR to Riverhead -thus allowing Riverhead to be served by the
L1RR's multiple-unit electric coaches - or by utilizing dual mode locomotives which can operate
in non-electrified territory as well as draw motive power from a third rail.
This alternative might also require improving the right-of--way east of Ronkonkoma (i.e., passing
sidings and/or double track, signals, etc.) as faz as Riverhead. In effect, the high-density
operations of the Ronkonkoma Branch would be extended east to Riverhead and this increased
level of operations would have to be integrated into the existing operations along the western
portions of the LIRR.
With this alternative, Riverhead would become more of a "focal point" forNorth Fork residents
' who want to utilize the LIRR. Additional pazking would be required neaz the Riverhead train
station, which is already being considered by the Town of Riverhead, and it might become
necessary to construct a rail vehicle storage yazd there because of the new service pattern. Note
' that Speonk, on the Montauk Branch, which is a similaz distance from N.Y.C., has hourly L1I2R
service.
One-Seat Service to Greenport
The next proposal is similaz to the first in that it involves operating a significantly higher number
' of trains. lu this proposal, frequent service (i.e., every hour on weekdays and every two hours on
weekends) would be operated between Manhattan and the North Fork. However, in this
scenario, the more frequent one-seat ride service would be available as far east as Greenport.
1 This alternative would face all of the same challenges as the previous proposal in terms of
infrastructure and cost; however, a significantly higher amount of parking at Riverhead might not
be as necessary because frequent service would exist as faz east as Greenport. This is offset by
the fact that a rail vehicle storage yazd might now be necessary at Greenport instead of in
Riverhead in order to accommodate the new service pattern. In any event, the capital costs
1
WHB\ L[TP 2000-94036 14
File: Preliminary Solutions\ rechMemo.doc
would be significantly higher than those in the first proposal because the azea served by frequent
LIRR service would be extended all the way to the eastern railhead at Greenport.
North Fork "Scoot" Service
' The next alternative involves an increased focus on utilization of the LIIZR for trips within the
North Fork itself. In order to accomplish this goal, the Jamesport Station, Cutchogue Station and
Peconic Station would all be reconstructed at their former locations. These newly constructed
stations would all have high platforms in order to expedite the loading and unloading process;
they would also be fully compliant with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
A new Tanger Station neaz the Tanger Outlet Center west of Riverhead would also be
constructed. Taken together, these stations - in addition to the existing LIRR stations at
Riverhead, Mattituck, Southold and Greenport -would allow for greater access to various points
' along the North Fork.
Additionally, a new railroad shuttle service, which has been referred to as "scoot service "could
be operated between Greenport Station and the new Tanger Station. The present limited level of
service would continue to be provided between the Ronkonkoma Station and the new Tanger
Station. With one train, atwo-hour headway could be maintained (i.e., 120 minute cycle time).
' With two trains, aone-hour headway could be maintained. In order to maximize ridership, it is
proposed that service operate on an hourly headway. This new service could operate seven days
a week.
The new North Fork Scoot could require significant investment in terms of track and signals
upgrades. Additionally, this alternative would have a high capital cost due to the reconstruction
of three former LIRR stations, the construction of one new station, and the need for additional
revenue equipment.
' There aze several variations upon this alternative, which also warrant consideration. These aze as
follows:
' • The North Fork Shuttle service may be a "summer only" operation. During the
remainder of the year, the present limited level of service would continue to be
provided between Ronkonkoma and Greenport.
' • The North Fork Shuttle could operate between the Ronkonkoma Station and
Greenport. This would greatly increase the cost of this proposal because frequent
service would have to be maintained over a significantly longer portion of the
Ronkonkoma Branch. However, additional benefits to this variation are that more
frequent service would be available to connect with the electrified service to the west
' and that Yaphank -although not part of the study azea -would benefit from more
frequent LIRR service.
• The North Fork Shuttle could also operate between Riverhead Station and Greenport.
This would somewhat lower the cost of the proposal because the new Tanger Station
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 15
' File: Preliminary Solu[ions\ TechMemo.doc
would not need to be constructed. The present limited level of service would
continue to be provided between Ronkonkoma Station and Riverhead.
' • A variation of the prior proposal would call for operating the new North Fork Shuttle
service between Riverhead Station and Greenport without reconstructing any of the
' former LIItR stations. Clearly, this would further lower the cost of this proposal.
The present limited level of service would continue to be provided between
Ronkonkoma Station and Riverhead.
' Wine Country Trains
' Another alternative is for LIRR to increase its existing program of special service (e.g., "Wine
Country Getaway" and Vineyazd Harvest Getaway"). The North Fork's wineries and aze a
' tourist attraction and present a possible mazket for increasing transit service.
Additional Trains
Finally, a somewhat straightforward proposal is to simply operate more LIRR trains along the
Ronkonkoma Branch. This proposal does not suggest upgrading the line with any significant
' capital construction, although investment is additional revenue equipment would be required.
The objective of this scheme is to more fully utilize the physical plant of the existing
Ronkonkoma Branch. It is possible that LIRR service between the Ronkonkoma Station and
Greenport could be operated on a three-hour (i.e., 180 minute) headway seven days a week.
Suffolk County Transit
' There aze several opportunities with regazds to improving Suffolk County Transit bus service on
the North Fork. It should be noted that the S-58 bus route has recently been extended to
' Riverhead from Middle Island. Accompanying each alternative is an estimate of the planning
horizon for each proposal and its possible implementation period. With bus service, the capital
investment would be much more limited than those discussed for the LIRR. Buses would be
' acquired, which typically takes a yeaz to 18 months. For proposals that only require a few buses,
Suffolk County Transit might be able to utilize its existing fleet.
' For the most part, the decision to implement a proposal involving increased bus service would be
dependent on identifying the necessary funding. It is appazent that passenger fares would only
cover a small portion of the cost, as such, would require outside funding sources/subsidies. The
' assumed magnitude of these subsidies suggests an implementation period of either neaz term or
mid term, within 5-7 years. None of the proposals have been categorized as long term because
of their magnitude and scale. Notwithstanding these qualitative assessments on the
' implementation period, the difficulty of obtaining necessary funding should not be understated.
"Rail Feeder" Service
' One suggestion for Suffolk County Transit is to operate a new "Rail Feeder" express bus
between the Ronkonkoma Station and the North Fork. The bus would operate as an express
1
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 16
t File: Preli}rtinary Solutions\TechMemo.doc
1
1
1
service along the Long Island Expressway between Ronkonkoma and Riverhead; between
Riverhead and Greenport the bus would utilize State Route 25. In Greenport, the bus would stop
at the railroad station, where the Shelter Island North Ferry provides service. This route
replicates that utilized by the 5-192 express service as far as Ronkonkoma; however, the 5-192
currently bypasses the Ronkonkoma Station on its trip between the North Fork and New York
City. This new bus route would allow for more frequent travel between the Ronkonkoma Station
and the North Fork than is presently afforded by the LIRR's Ronkonkoma Branch. It serves to
better connect the North Fork with Ronkonkoma without utilizing capital-intensive proposals
that primarily involve some type of major investment in the LIRR.
This route would require a cycle time of approximately three hours (i.e., 180 minutes). With two
vehicles, service could be operated approximately every 90 minutes; with three vehicles, service
could be operated approximately every hour. It is proposed that hourly service be operated on
weekdays, with 90 minute headways maintained on weekends. While this proposal partially
duplicates service on the existing Ronkonkoma Branch, it involves changes to the bus system
which require less lead time and cost. For this reason, the service change would be considered a
near term proposal.
Improved 5-92 Service
There are several suggestions for improved service on the existing S-92 bus route that can be
considered relatively modest neaz term proposals. These aze as follows:
• Increase frequency of service along the existing S-92 bus route (i.e., on a consistent
hourly headway in both directions on weekdays and Saturdays). As stated previously,
this bus route operates between the North Fork and the South Fork via Riverhead. In
order to slightly improve this bus route's headway, one vehicle could be added to the
route on weekdays and on Saturdays. In addition, a stop could be added at the Greenport
LIl2R station.
• Extend all S-92 bus trips to Orient Point (i.e., eliminate the Greenport short turn trips).
As is the current practice, approximately half of the trips would continue to use County
Route 58 in Riverhead. As with many of the proposals, service could be expanded to
include Sunday operations. Initially, this could be oriented to peak travel seasons and
them include Sunday service throughout the yeaz. Another consideration would be
schedule coordination of bus and Cross Sound Ferry Service. Moreover, schedule
coordination of all transit modes would be a desirable attribute of any potential transit
solutions.
• Allow for "point" or "route" deviation service (i.e., demand responsive service) within
three-quarters of a mile of the S-92 bus route at all times that the route is in operation.
This proposal would allow the buses to divert off of their route to pick-up or drop-off
passengers who have made prior arrangements. This operating scheme enables
passengers to utilize the S-92 bus for "curb-to-curb" service, akin to a taxicab.
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 17
File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc
1
This proposal would require that Suffolk County Transit or the operator assign a
dispatcher to schedule and arrange the pick-ups and drop-offs for the 5-92 bus route.
' Another additional cost would entail the extra time assigned to the S-92 to account for the
possibility of multiple pick-up and drop-off requests. This will likely require the
assignment of at least one more vehicle to this route. However, in the aggregate this
proposal does not utilize an extraordinary level of resources and is therefore considered
to be a mid term alternative.
' New CR 48 Express Route
' Another proposal is to operate a new express bus route along County Route 48. This new
"Express Route" would operate between the Tanger Outlet Center and Greenport via Riverhead.
Service can operate hourly throughout the week including weekends. This new express bus
service would require a two hour cycle time; therefore, two vehicles would be required to
maintain an hourly headway. It should be noted that this proposal could be implemented in place
of the previously described LIRR "North Fork Shuttle" between the Tanger Station and
Greenport along the Ronkonkoma Branch.
New park-and-ride lots could be located along the main roads leading out of each hamlet where
' they intersect County Route 48, maximizing the utility and convenience of the new express bus
route. Alternatively, or in addition, existing municipal or private parking lots could be utilized
for pazk and ride. This proposal can be considered to be a candidate for near term
' implementation.
Circulator Bus Service
' Another proposal is for Suffolk County Transit to operate new "circulator" bus routes in the
hamlet/village centers within the North Fork. Circulator buses enhance the vitality of core azeas
by improving mobility within the central business district. The combination of this circulator
bus service with LIRR service would help promote transit oriented development. This type of
development incorporates a mixture of land uses azound a transit-stop in apedestrian-friendly
' environment. Circulator bus routes can also become closely identified with a particulaz locality
and thereby can help promote a sense of community among residents. These bus routes can also
be utilized to connect to the proposed "Express Route" along County Route 48 and to various
' LIRR stations along the Ronkonkoma Branch. Time tables would need to be coordinated to
encourage use by riders of those services.
It is proposed that new circulator bus routes be operated in Greenport, Mattituck, Cutchogue and
Southold throughout the week including weekends. The exact route alignment of each of the
circulator bus routes has not yet been determined. However, one bus would be assigned to
' operate in each community; therefore, the headway on each circulator bus route would vary
depending upon the cycle time required to operate the bus route. It should be noted that Suffolk
County Transit's S-8A bus route already effectively functions as a circulator bus route in and
around Riverhead. As part of this proposal, the S-8A would also operate on Sundays. Due to the
introduction of a new transit service type to many North Fork communities -and because of the
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 18
' File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMena.doc
level of resources associated with implementing and effectively mazketing the new circulator bus
routes -this proposal can be considered to be a mid term to long term alternative.
' Demand Responsive Service
Another alternative is to consider operating a demand responsive service throughout the North
Fork. The existing underlying fixed route bus system would continue to operate "as is" while a
complementary demand responsive service would provide "curb-to-curb" service throughout the
' entire North Fork Transportation Study azea. Service would operate on weekdays and on
Saturdays (i.e., whenever the current Suffolk County Transit system is in operation). This
service could either be made available to the general public or only be made available to selected
eligible groups (e.g., seniors, persons with disabilities).
' Similaz to the prior proposal for point and/or route deviation service from the S92 bus route, this
proposal would require that Suffolk County Transit or the operator assign a dispatcher to
schedule and arrange the pick-ups and drop-offs for the new demand responsive service. In the
' aggregate this proposal is not expected to utilize an extraordinary level of resources and is
therefore considered to be a "near term" altemative.
' Airport Service
Another proposal involves the operation of bus service between the North Fork communities and
' both John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) and LaGuazdia Airport (LGA). At the present
time, the S-192 express bus stops in Queens at Exit 24 of the Long Island Expressway (i.e., at
Kissena Boulevazd) on its way between the North Fork and Manhattan. No direct service is
provided to either airport.
Service to JFK would require a cycle time of approximately six hours. This is primarily due to
the fact that the vehicle would have to circulate around the airport in order to serve all nine
airline terminals. However, it should be kept in mind that the new AirTrain rail system will soon
connect the Jamaica Station of the LIRR with all the terminals at JFK. It is therefore possible for
the bus to travel only between Jamaica and the North Fork, thus reducing the cycle time to
approximately five hours, while still providing aone-seat ride to Jamaica Station. Service to
LGA would require a cycle time of approximately five and a half hours.
' Were this suggestion implemented, it is proposed that two buses initially be assigned to each bus
route in order to test the extent of the possible mazket for bus service to the airports. The
' vehicles should be lazge "over-the-road" motorcoaches with luggage bins. The JFK service
would have a headway of approximately either three hours or two and a half hours, depending
upon whether or not the service operates only as faz as the Jamaica AirTrain Station. The LGA
service would have a headway of approximately two hours and 45 minutes. In order to be
useful, the airport services would have to operate throughout the week. Their service span would
also have to be relatively long; it is proposed they operate from approximately 6:OOAM to
' 12:OOAM.
1
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 19
t File: Preliminary Solutions\ rechMemo.doc
LJ
1
Due to the level of resources that would be required to operate these routes, along with the
specialized mazket being served, both proposals would be considered long-term proposals.
Utilize Rail Road Right of Way for Bus Service
Another proposal calls for paving over the LIRR's Ronkonkoma Branch right-of--way east of
Riverhead and utilizing the new roadway to operate a new shuttle bus route between Riverhead
and Greenport. Service could operate hourly throughout the week. This new bus service would
require a two hour cycle time; therefore, two vehicles would be required to maintain an hourly
headway. It should be noted that -similar to the proposal for a new County Route 48 "Express
Route" -this proposal could be implemented in place of the previously described LIRR "North
Fork Shuttle" between the Tanger Station and Greenport along the Ronkonkoma Branch. Due
to the resources that would be required to implement this alternative and its institutional issues,
this proposal would be classified as along-term initiative.
Recreational Shuttles
Another proposal involves operating a seasonal (i.e., summer/autumn) "recreational shuttle"
sponsored in part by the various North Fork wineries. The new shuttle would operate on
weekends and could connect the wineries with motels and the various LIRR stations along the
North Fork. The exact alignrrrent of the proposed route has not yet been determined. To be
effective, approximately two or three specialized vehicles would have to be assigned to this
service.
As was previously mentioned, the North Fork's wineries aze a tourist attraction in their own
right, and special weekend excursion trains could be operated to serve them in a manner similaz
to the LIRR's current "Summer Getaways" specials. This bus shuttle route could either connect
with new train service or simply serve the existing LIRR trains. In any event, this proposal may
be considered a neaz term possibility.
Other Transportation Options
Encourage local lodging establishments and other major azea destinations to provide shuttle
service to/from LIRR train stations.
• Local Chambers of Commerce, in cooperation with LIRR, could provide area information at
East End LIRR stations, including azea destination maps and phone numbers, taxi cab phone
numbers, and local bus information.
• One suggestion is to install bike racks on Suffolk County Transit buses to extend the service
uses of the fixed rate system. Because of liability and other consideration, SC Transit has
chosen not to do so. The SEEDS analysis should more fully explore this issue.
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 20
' File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc
Summary
It should be kept in mind that the proposals represent a "menu" of alternatives that may be
implemented in whole or in part. Different elements of certain proposals can also be "mixed and
matched" with elements of other proposals. The proposals should provide a useful and timely
input to the transportation analysis that will be undertaken as part of the SEEDS project.
5. Potential Ferry Solutions
The ferry operations in the study azea aze privately owned and operated, for-profit enterprises. As
such, changes to their operation aze not in the purview of the agencies involved in the
prepazation of this report. The ferry operators, however, have been cooperative in providing
input to the study.
It is recommended that several new potential ferry services be investigated. However, should it
be determined that these new services would be beneficial, it is beyond the scope of this effort to
identify possible operators or sources of funding for the establishment of these services. That
being stated, the following ferry strategies should be evaluated.
New Ferry From Shoreham to Connecticut
During the public participation effort for this study, numerous suggestions regazding alternate
ferry service between the Northern Shore of Long Island and Connecticut were made. Most
often, Shoreham was the suggested location for the Long Island port, likely due to the presence
of the defunct LIPA nucleaz power plant and related facilities. Ferry service from Shoreham to
New England would be beneficial to the North Fork study area in that those ferry passengers
with origins or destinations west of the study azea would be able to reach the ferry terminal
without traveling along the North Fork. However, ferry passengers with origins and destinations
on the east end of the South Fork of Long Island would likely continue to use the Cross-Sound
feny, so as to avoid driving on the crowded South Fork roads. Therefore, this ferry service
would be of greatest benefit to the North Fork if the ferry service at Orient Point were terminated
in conjunction with the institution of the Shoreham service. It is not likely that this could be
accomplished, unless the operator of the Cross Sound Ferry were given significant financial
incentive to relocate to Shoreham. Furthermore, were the Orient service terminated, those ferry
riders destined to the east end of the South Fork would likely continue to use the Shelter Island
"bridge" route to avoid driving on the South Fork; these drivers simply would drive east from
Shoreham to Greenport, rather than west from Orient to Greenport, and cross over Shelter Island
to the east end of the South Fork.
New Ferry From Montauk to Connecticut
In recent years, there has been considerable discussion of establishing ferry service from the
South Fork of Long Island to Connecticut. Although there has been local opposition to this
proposal, it is recommended that it be fiuther investigated, as it would have a positive impact on
traffic conditions on both the North and South Forks. The service would carry both vehicles and
passengers. Establishment of ferry service to the South Fork would benefit the North Fork by
WHB\ L1TP 2000-94036 21
File: Preliminary $olutions\ TechMemo.doc
II
LJ
1
ll
removing from the North Fork roadways those vehicles traveling between New England and the
South Fork on the ferry. On the South Fork, travelers between New England and the South Fork
would arrive and depart from Montauk. On Friday evenings and Saturday mornings, when
eastbound traffic volumes destined to the South Fork are heaviest, those arriving via ferry would
travel in the reverse direction from Montauk to their destination. Similazly, on Sunday evenings
when departing traffic is heaviest westbound, those leaving via the ferry would travel east to
Montauk to depart. It should be noted that this service would result in new traffic patterns in the
vicinity of the new ferry terminal; however, there may be locations at which the temrinal could
be located so that the impact of these new traffic patterns could be minimized. It is recommended
that the potential demand for such a service be investigated through the data acquisition program
for the SEEDS initiative, as this is an issue with regional implications, rather than being confined
to the North Fork.
New Ferry from Greenport to North Haven
Recently, a new ferry service, for passengers only, was proposed to operate between Greenport
and North Haven, on the north shore of the South Fork. The operator of the existing South Ferry
between Shelter Island and North Haven expressed willingness to provide this service. This
service would be beneficial to Shelter Island, in that it would provide travelers with a means of
traveling between the North and South Forks without traversing Shelter Island. Provision of a
service which carried vehicles in addition to passengers would provide even greater benefit to
Shelter Island, by allowing those "bridge" travelers to bypass the Island altogether. The Village
of Greenport has expressed support for passenger only ferry service, while South Fork
municipalities have opposed provision of new ferry service.
In light of the existence of a potential operator, docking facilities at both termini of the proposed
route, and substantiated demand for the service as documented in the Shelter Island North Ferry
Origin and Destination Study, it is suggested that provision of vehicle and passenger ferry
service be given serious consideration under the SEEDS process.
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 22
File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
6. Access Management Options
Discussion
Access management is defined as the practice of optimizing access to land uses while preserving
traffic flow on the surrounding roadway network in terms of capacity, safety, and speed.
Roadways perform the dual role of providing access to abutting properties and accommodating
through travel. It is important that these roles be balanced and maintained, in that traffic
congestion can result when poorly planned development and improperly located driveways cause
operations to degrade. All transportation plans (regional, state, local) should have an access
management element.
Typically, awell-designed access management plan includes the classification of roadways into
various levels of access control. Stricter standazds are applied to major streets while local streets
have more flexible requirements. in a statewide access management plan, there might be seven
levels in the roadway hierarchy: freeway, expressway, strategic arterial, principal arterial,
secondary arterial, collector, and local street. Urban areas may have five levels, while rural areas
with low traffic volume might allow for three or four. Major streets should serve through traffic,
while collector and local roads provide access to property.
In the study area, NYS Rt. 25, CR 48, CR 58 and CR 105 can be considered principal arterials,
and thus should primarily serve through traffic. Sound Avenue can also be considered an arterial,
in that, with CR 48, it forms an important alternative to Rt. 25 for east west through travel. There
aze a small number of roadways that serve as collectors, and the balance of the roadway system
serves as local streets providing access to properties located adjacent to them.
Commercial development has proliferated along CR 58 with little or no requirement for shared
pazking or internal circulation among adjacent businesses, and seemingly no attempt made to
limit the number of curb cuts. Rt. 25 functions as a downtown "Main Street" for the many hamlet
centers it serves, while outside the hamlet centers it provides the principal means of travel
between them, and functions as a through arterial, especially east of Greenport, where it is the
only east-west road of any significance.
Due to the history of development and the nature of the study area, allowances aze made in the
zoning and building codes for roadside businesses related to agricultural activities such as farm
stands to exist along the arterial roadways, mainly on Rt. 25 and CR 48/Sound Avenue. Most of
these businesses have no formal ofl~street parking, and in many cases, no formal access
driveways. Vehicles simply drive off the pavement and park adjacent to the businesses wherever
possible. Other vehicles park on the pavement, e.g., on narrow shoulders to visit these sites. This
results in considerable friction with through traffic, and is the observed source of a substantial
portion of congestion found on the study azea roadways. Imposition of a rigid hierarchy of
roadways with strictly defined criteria for allowable access configurations would be contrary to
the stated goal of this study to preserve and enhance the rural, agricultural nature of the study
area. Therefore, an access management plan in the traditional sense is not offered here; rather, a
number of suggestions are made to guide the responsible municipalities in achieving the best
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 23
File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc
C
1
1
t
11
1
possible balance possible between the objectives of providing for a well managed highway
system and preserving one of the most desirable chazacteristics of the study area, its rural nature.
Potential Strategy
With the exception of Sound Avenue, which is a Riverhead Town road, access management on
the major State and County roadways falls under the purview of those municipalities. However,
the Town governments play an important role in the review of subdivision site plans under the
SEQRA process, and the establishment of zoning ordinances. Typically, the State or County
cannot deny access to an uncontrolled arterial if it is the sole access point to the property.
A number of lazge pazcels of farmland still exist, many with frontage along or access to more
than one road. Parcels having access to side roads as well as arterials and collectors should have
such access preserved during the subdivision review process. When property owners or
developers make application for subdivision of such parcels, the site plan review process should
be utilized to make certain that new smaller properties aze not created which only have access to
arterials, thereby resulting in the necessity to grant individual access to each parcel. Site plans for
subdivision of lazge properties zoned for residential development along arterials should provide
individual pazcels with access to side roads via internal connections, either driveways or internal
roadways. Where practical, the residences in such subdivisions should be oriented so that they
back on the arterial, with a suitable buffer between the residences and the highway right of way.
Where it is impossible to provide all parcels with access to the side roads, access to the arterial
should be limited to a single access point providing combined access to affected pazcels. This
can be accomplished through easements that remain with the property, or by design of internal
roadway systems that provide access to individual parcels within a subdivision and intersect with
the major road at a single point- In this manner, the smallest number of potential conflict points
is created on the arterial.
With particulaz regazd to commercial development, it is further recommended that the Towns in
the study azea develop and adopt design standards that control the design and spacing of access
points such as driveways and intersections as well as the length of pazking lot driveway aisles
' and the provision of auxiliary fuming lanes to provide for the deceleration of vehicles turning
into driveways or other streets. Driveways should never be located within an intersection's azea
of influence- Auxiliary lanes decrease delay and accidents as well as increase capacity by
' reducing the difference in speed between through and fuming vehicles. Proper spacing of
driveways and intersections has been shown to increase a driver's reaction time and their ability
to avoid conflicts. To the extent possible, fuming movements at unsignalized driveways and
' intersections should be limited. This can be accomplished through driveway design measures
such as channelizing islands or constmction of raised medians that can also be used to provide
left turn lanes.
It should be noted that the conditions discussed above regazding the lack of formal access and
parking facilities to serve the agriculture-related activities along the arterials in the study area
' will only be exacerbated by the growth in traffic volumes due to the increasing popularity of the
North Fork, both as a recreationaUsecond home destination and as a place of primary residence.
Based on extensive analysis of data collected during the course of the LITP 2000 effort, traffic
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 2.4
' File: Reliminary Solutions\ TechMena.doc
1
volumes on the North Fork expected to grow at an annual rate of neazly 2%. The responsible
municipalities should give some consideration to establishing at least minimal standazds for
' providing off street parking and formalizing access to such businesses. Such criteria should
include every attempt to provide access on secondary rather than arterial roadways, if possible,
as well as driveway location and minimal pazking requirements. Pazking lots and access
driveways need not necessarily be paved, but should be cleazly identified as such, by signing or
striping.
I
1
lJ
WHB\ LITP 2000-94036 2.5
' File: Preliminary Solutions\ TechMemo.doc