HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnding Gridlock:East End Transportation Futures May 2005
I .
'I ,
, .
. ,
, ',' Endir1g 'Gridlock: . \
East !En~' TransPQ..-tation
Futures,
,
"
I .
, .
. I
,. .
,
{
. ,
May, 2005
.;
,
(
-
Ending Gridlock
Correction Page
Correction: The Long Island Railroad (LIRR) is incorrectly referred to as
LIRE in the Executive Sununary and main report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 12, 2004, rhe Insrirute for Sustainable Development hosted Ending Gridlock, a conference
at Southampton College. This report, which documents the major problems facing transportation and
land use on the East End of Long Island, makes the following observations and recommendations.
Observations:
1. While the Hampton's are well known for its summer gridlock, traffic congestion now extends to
both the North and South Forks and persists throughout the year.
2. Planning for the East End must address certain basic facts and widely shared goals:
a. Land area is quite limited;
b. There is widespread desire to preserve the existing farms and rural landscape;
c. Local quality of life depends upon this rural character and charm;
d. There is a strong commitment to general environmental preservation;
e. There is a booming second home economy and home building industry which is attracted
to, but also erodes, the area's rural landscape;
f. There is a significant shortage of affordable housing for the local workforce;
g. Pervasive congestion exists on all primary roads; the road networks are over capacity
during key travel periods much of the year (e.g., rush hours on the South Fork and summer
weekends).
h. Public transit is minimal, unreliable, and poorly coordinated.
3. Transportation and land use are interdependent; there is no way to separate the two. The
transportation system is used by the people who live, work, and visit here and their transit needs
are defined by land use patterns. Part of the problem with the last couple of decades is that we
have been separating land use from transportation decision-making.
4. Transportation planners and engineers have traditionally responded to increasing congestion by
widening roads and constructing bypasses around congested villages. This kind of road expansion,
however, only encourages additional auto dependency, paving over valuable land and increasing
suburban sprawl. Within a short period of time, congestion problems inevitably return, with the
increased number of cars adding additional congestion burdens to secondary roads.
5. Regional mobility will only be improved if local and regional governments commit to developing
well designed multi-modal transit systems that encompass walking and bicycle paths, bus, mini-
bus and jitney services, rail and light-rail options, and water taxis and passenger ferries. For the
foreseeable future, congestion will continue to be with us; we cannot llsolve" congestion. We
should provide a wider range of alternative transit modes and offer transit services on a more
frequent basis so that travelers have more choice.
"
Based upon the conference, the Institute offers the following recommendations:
1. The East End needs a rural transit network, consisting of regularly scheduled shuttle trains, buses
and ferries, which can move five distinct user groups: year round residents, second homeowners,
workers, tourists and freight...more effectively and affordably. Each user category should have
services specifically designed for its unique needs, but on an integrated basis.
2. The most important improvement the region can make is ro expand usage of the Long Island
Railroad corridors, which are poorly utilized. The existing LIRE cars are designed for travel to
and from Manhattan. The corridor could function more efficiently as a regional light rail or
trolley service with more frequent stops.
3. Careful study should be given to the proposal to create a regional transit authority.
4. Land use policies on the East End continue to encourage large lot sprawl. These policies are
harmful and must be reversed in favor of "smart growth" design principles that favor transit-
oriented development, with higher density
in hamlets and villages while preserving
farm land and "open space."
5. The S92 bus service is inadequate and
poorly coordinated with ferry and rail
service. During the summer months, local
buses should run more frequently and
schedules should be better publicized.
Transit agencies and local elected officials
must work more together to address these
service gaps.
The most important
improvement the region can
make is to expand usage of the
Long Island Railroad corridors,
which are poorly utilized.
6. A regional Internet transit website should
be established to provide information on:
highway congestion and optimal travel times; construction schedules; and scheduling
information on bus, rail, and ferry services.
7.. Bike lanes should continue to be expanded into a regionally coherent network. Suffolk County
should establish maps and other resources to promote usage of this system.
8. Since opposition to ferry services seems to preclude their expansion on the South Fork at this
time, efforts should be undertaken to establish passenger service to and from Riverhead and
Greenport to Sag Harbor. Ferry service from Connecticut to Riverhead or west of Riverhead
would alleviate some summer congestion on the North Fork. This option merits further attention
and should allow for bus and/or rail interconnects.
9. Better management of the existing road networks can and should be obtained by:
. Staggering workplace hours;
. Designating selected current secondary roadways as HOVjbus lanes - but without the
addition of any significant road-widening;
. Promoting carpool services;
. Creating toll roads, with funds used to subsidize bus, van, and trolley services.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
SECTION 2: LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy
State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr.
East End Mayors and Supervisors Assoc., Chair Patrick A. Heaney
SECTION 3: THE SEEDS PROCESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Peter Leibowitz
Bernie Kalus
James Kahng
SECTION 4: REGIONAL VIEWS ON SEEDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Gerry Bogacz
Wayne Ugolik
Mitch Pally
Lisa Tyson
SECTION 5: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: CONGRESSMAN TIMOTHY BISHOP................ 24
SECTION 6: LOCAL VOICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Robert DeLuca
Hank de Cillia
Scott Carlin and David Sprintzen
SECTION 7: RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
SECTION 8: APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Related Internet Links
Acronyms
Data Tables
About the Institute and Acknowledgements
SEEDS Land Use - Transportation Scenario Matrix
Correction: The LIRR (Long
Island Railroad) is incorrectly
referred to as LIRE in this
report.
iii
This report is printed on recycled paper.
Section 1: 1
INTRODUCTION
On March 12, 2004, rhe Insrirure for Susrainable Developmenr hosred Ending Gridlock, a conference
at Southampton College. This report documents the major themes of the conference and makes a series
of policy recommendations. This Introduction, the concluding Recommendations, and the Executive
Summary highlight the Institute's evaluation of East End Transportation issues. The other conference
speakers did not contribute to these sections of the report.
While the Hampton's are well known for its summer gridlock, traffic congestion now extends to both
forks well beyond the summer months. But, if the ptoblem is clear, the solutions are not. Serious
disagreements exist over the utility of expanding roads and ferry, bus, and rail services. Can these
conflicts be resolved productively?
Planning for the East End must address certain basic facts and widely shared goals:
. Land area is quite limited;
. There is widespread desire to preserve the existing farms and rural landscape;
. Local quality of life depends upon this rural character and charm;
. There is a strong commitment to general
environmental preservation;
. There is a booming second home economy and
home building industry which is attracted to, but
also erodes, the area's rural landscape;
. There is a significant shortage of affordable
housing for the local workforce;
. Pervasive congestion exists on all primary roads,
the road networks are over capacity during key
travel periods much of the year (e.g., rush hours
on the South Fork and summer weekends).
. Public transit is minimal, unreliable and
poorly coordinated.
Yet investments in new
transportation infrastructure
generally take decades to
move from initial design
to completion ...
These are the realities that transportation planning must address. Yet investments in new transportation
infrastructure generally take decades to move from initial design to completion, and the East End doesn't
have that luxury of time. Inadequate infrastructure costs millions of dollars in lost economic productivity,
added stress, wasted energy consumption and its associated health and environmental impacts.
Transportation planners and engineers have traditionally responded to increasing congestion by
widening roads and constructing bypasses around congested villages. This kind of road expansion,
however, only encourages additional auto dependency, while paving over valuable land, and increasing
wasteful and ugly suburban sprawl. Within a short period of time, congestion problems inevitably
return, with the increased number of cars adding additional congestion burdens to secondary roads.
1
Cover image reprinted from http://www.standardreporting.net/arttime/gallervJart-lg{TRAFFIC.GIF
1
.
Road expansion increases the region's reliance on cars, adding to automobile pollution, gteenhouse gas
(carbon dioxide) emissions, and traffic accidents. In addition, this mode of transit has accelerated land
development and sprawl, which increases property taxes (to maintain roads and related services) and
accelerates the conversion of farm lands and woodlands to housing. The result is degradation in the
region's rural quality of life, which anchors the region's second home industry.
We now have an opportunity to curb the East End's reliance upon automobiles. Virtually every other
mode of transit offers greater possibilities for improving mobility, promoting economic development,
social equity, environmental quality, and human health than automobiles, especially single occupancy
vehicles which are our primary mode of daily commuting. These quality of life issues transcend local
concerns, including a wide range of global issues from global warming to the economic costs of
dependence on foreign oil and the potential for resorting to war to secure those resources.
There is a tremendous amount to be gained ftom reducing our reliance upon automobiles. The gains
can be quantified in many ways, including reductions in asthma rates, automobile accidents, commuting
times, paved surfaces, road runoff into water bodies, and increases in the per capita costs of
transportation. These impacts unnecessarily etode the generally high quality of life for which the East
End is so well known.
Regional mobility will only be improved if local and regional governments commit to developing well
designed multi-modal transit systems that encompass walking and bicycle paths, bus, mini-bus and
jitney services, rail and light-rail options, and water taxis and passenger ferties. Offering a better mix of
transit services, however, will not "solve" our gridlock problems. It will give each of us more transit
choices and more flexibility to create healthier communities.
In our opinion, transit systems must be built with an explicit commitment to "smart growth" planning
principles. Directing development towards hamlet centers is the only viable long-term strategy for
reducing automobile dependency, expanding the usage of public transit services, and preserving
farmland and open space. This would represent a dramatic departure from post-war suburban style
development on Long Island. Local residents insist upon
the need to preserve the rural qualities of eastern Long
Island. That is not possible so long as existing zoning
laws continue to encourage sprawl throughout the region.
At the present time there exists inadequate political
momentum to push development in this new direction.
Ptoponents of environmental initiatives like the land
preservation tax have in the recent past successfully
argued for the need to "preservell the region's rural
character. While significant farmland and environ-
mentally sensitive parc~ls have been saved through these
new policies, the long-term direction of current land
management will be the continued loss of the area's rural
landscape. Increased hamlet density will also enhance the region's social, cultural, and economic
vitality, while providing opportunities for expanding affordable housing for local workers and the
children of current residents and for providing higher levels of transit services.
. .. a better mix of transit
services ... will give each of
us more transit choices and
more flexibility to create
healthier communities.
2
"
Section 2:
LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
The Honorable Steve Levy,
Suffolk County Executive
As much as sitting in traffic frustrates us, driving our
automobile is the preferred method of travel on Long
Island - we love our cars. In Suffolk County, there are
about I. I 8 million registered cars, and about 1.05 million
people with drivers' licenses in a county of 1.4 million.
Only about 6% of the households on Long Island do not
own a car.
The picture of the Long Islander sitting in a car is
the legacy of a 50-year eastern migration of suburban
development. Nassau is over 90% developed, and
Suffolk, over 64% developed. And that followed or
was followed by paved ribbons of roadway like the
LIE, Northern and Southern State Parkways, and
Sunrise Highway on the South, and Jericho Turnpike
on the North.
Commuting to WC!r~, Sutl'olk county
2000 US C.nsus D.ta
Carpooled,tO%
While Long Island was once a bedroom community to
New York City, where our parents and grandparents
came to live, today, we are living, playing and working
right here on Long Island. 87% of Suffolk residents
who work are employed in Nassau or Suffolk Counties.
Over 73% of Suffolk's workforce resides in the County.
Many of these workers can be seen in the "trade
parade" as they head out east early in the morning and
return to the west later in the day after completing
their workday. The Regional Plan Association describes
Long Island's development this way:
"... development patterns at densities high enough to generate large
volumes of travelers per square mile, but not high enough to warrant
[support for] a robust transit network."
However, despite this reality our regional bus systems are showing some of the highest levels of use ever
- almost 31 million trips taken on LI Bus and 4.5 million on Suffolk County Transit (SCT). Yet, there
clearly must be increased attention invested in making our bus system more convenient and more reliable.
While history has shown that transportation is first and foremost a function of the uses of land, which
by-and-Iarge is the province of our towns and villages through their home rule powers to zone and
control subdivisions, there are ways in which the county can work with communities and local elected
officials to improve transportation around town and throughout the island, enhance our neighborhoods,
and maintain the character of each of the five towns that make up the East End of our island.
3
<<
In conjunction with the Southampton Ttanspottation Task Fotce, the Suffolk County Department of
Public Wotks has been working on a federally aided cottidor study to develop a comptehensive plan for
improvements to County Road (CR) 39, North Road. The "Expanded Project Proposal," (EPP) which
is a detailed report outlining traffic safety and operational needs within the corridor has been
completed. Although additional federal funds for CR 39 are not available at this time, the County has
appropriated $2.8 million dollars to continue rhe design process. (In the short term, we are moving
forward on the design of the reconstruction of the CR 39,
North Road Bridge over St. Andrew's Road. A consultant
has been selected and fee negotiations are underway. Federal
funds are available for the design and construction of this
structure, which is currently scheduled for 2006.)
Route S92, the major bus
line on the East End, has
grown to 281,000 riders
in 2003 becoming the third
most traveled bus line in
the entire system,
Over the past several years we've selectively upgraded bus
lines throughout the SCT bus route network. On the East
End, important bus lines were extended from Middle Island
and Center Moriches to Riverhead to provide direct bus
rides to East Northport and Patchogue. On the North and
South Forks, Route S92, Orient Point/Greenport to East
Hampton via Riverhead was upgraded to hourly service.
Overall the net result was record rider ship for SCT services
in 2002 and 2003. Route S92, the major bus line on the East End, has grown to 281,000 riders in 2003
becoming the third most traveled bus line in the entire system. SCAT, our ADA Para transit service
that provides curb-to-curb reservation transportation to our more seriously disabled riders also carried
record rider level throughout the County as well as the East End.
Surveys have revealed that approximately 57% of our riders use SCT buses to ride to work and 9% to
school. Therefore 2/3 of our riders are commuters using SCT buses to meet their everyday trip making
requirements. Combined with growing rider levels, SCT is proving to be an increasingly important part
of our local economy. Certain S92 trips during commuter
hours are actually experiencing full seated loads. Other
bus services between Montauk and East Hampton have
seen growth in work trips as well.
. .. 2/3 of our riders are
commuters using SeT buses
to meet their everyday trip
making requirements.
We have worked with our riders, bus drivers and other
interested parties to inventory existing bus stops as well as
identify new stops. Just this month, we began removing
old bus stop signs and installing new ones at over 3,200
locations throughout the SCT bus network. These are
attractive signs sporting the new SCT yellow and blue colors and logo, with ADA compliant lettering
identifying the bus route. Most importantly, route destination and the public information telephone
number will finally be correct. In addition, 20 of the route S92 bus stops will have placards that display
schedule and route information for that specific bus stop to help riders' better use the SCT network.
This year the County will install new bus passenger shelters at 18 SCT bus stops, 8 of which will be in
the Towns of Riverhead and Southampton. We have parrnered with these towns to bring attractive and
somewhat unique bus shelters to the system in those towns. Specifically, both towns have had
considerable input into the design of the shelters, each adding their own custom features. The County
secured grant funding to support the purchase and installation of the shelters and the towns have
agreed to maintain those shelters including providing any future shelter upgrades they may desire.
4
(Note: SCT operates 11 bus lines in East Hampton, Riverhead, Southampton, and Southold. No SCT
bus service is operated on Shelter Island. There are 51 bus routes in the SCT bus route network.)
Another way that the County can directly and indirectly help address transportation problems is
through increased attention to important environmental, economic, housing, and business issues facing
us. These are also among the issues that go to the core of how we want to see the landscape of the East
End after the next 10-15 years, and are inextricably linked to transportation needs and planning:
Farmland and Open Space Programs, Workforce Housing, Revitalizing Downtowns and Hamlets, and
Remediation and Redeveloping Brown fields.
Fred W. Thiele, Jr.2
New York State Assemblyman
As a local elected official for almost twenty years, I can easily
attest to the fact that traffic and transportation related issues
have remained constant themes throughout my public service
to the East End of Long Island.
More than 75% of
respondents support more
rail service for eastern
Long Island ...
In response to the growing concerns of my constituents, this
year I distributed a survey within the Towns of Southampton and East Hampton on a myriad of
transportation issues. The results were calculated by my office and then were broken down by town.
The 15 question survey yielded a 10% return rate. The questions touched on topics such as railroad
service, ferries, highway infrastructure, bike paths, and buses.
Among the results were the following:
1. More than 75% of respondents support more rail service for eastern Long Island, including
shuttle trains from Speonk to Montauk, additional non-stop trains from New York City, and
"Park and Rail" service at Westhampton, East Hampton, and Southampton
2. The extension of the Sunrise Highway (State Route
27) to Amagansett was opposed 60% to 33%.
Establishment of bike
paths was supported by
75% of the respondents.
3. Improved bus service, including shuttle buses to
village centers from outside parking areas received
more than 60% support.
4. Automobile and passenger ferries to Connecticut were
opposed by 12% and 5% margins, respectively.
5. New York City to East End and an East End Loop
passenger ferry services were supported by 11 % and 7% margins, respectively.
6. Expansion of general aviation at Gabreski and East Hampton airports was opposed by a
35% to 54% margin.
7. Establishment of bike paths was supported by 75% of the respondents.
8. Traffic calming measures were supported by a 49% to 38% margin
9.
A separate Peconic Bay Transportation Authority to coordinate regional transportation
improvements was supported by a margin of 53% to 21 %.
2
Assemblyman Thiele led an afternoon panel at the conference. At the request of the Institute, this paper was submitted in
Fall 2004 aftet the Match 2004 Confetence.
5
This last item, the creation of a Peconic Bay Regional Transportation Authority, is crucial to addressing
the East End's unique infrastructure and population. It is clear to me and my constituency, that the
Long Island Rail Road and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have been inattentive and
disinterested in transportation problems plaguing our local communities and roadways.
The goal of this legislation is to create a regional transporration authority that is familiar with and can
concentrate on local transportation matters, including the improvement and development of new and
existing transportation services. The Peconic Bay Regional Transportation District shall be comprised
of the Towns of Southampton, East Hampton, Shelter
Island, Southold, and Riverhead. The Authority itself
would consist of five members, one from each town
within the regional district.
... the creation of a Peconic
Bay Regional Transportation
Authority, is crucial to
addressing the East End's
unique infrastructure
and population.
This past September, I traveled to Cape Cod to meet
with representatives from the area and to discuss the
Cape's Regional Transportation Authority. In order to
establish the Cape Code Regional Transportation
Authority, the Massachusetts State Legislarure enacted
enabling legislation. As such, this is the same mechanism
that I am ttying to achieve with my legislation.
As the State Assembly representative for the East End, I will continue to work with my colleagues on
all levels of government to address the needs and concerns of local residents. I will reintroduce my
legislation to create the Peconic Bay Regional Transportation Authority in January 2005 when the
2005-06 Session commences. I welcome any additional input and I look forward to tackling the local
issues facing my constituency.
Patrick A. Heaney
Supervisor, Town of Southampton
Chair, East End Mayors and
Supervisors Association
The East End Mayors and Supervisors Association
provides a sounding board for issues affecting the East
End's five towns and nine villages and also provides a
regional voice to what we call the Peconic Region, East
End or Twin Forks of Long Island. The East End has
been described as a kind of "dead-end street." I would
use a different image. I would describe the East End as two cul-de-~acs.
In the Town of Southampton, there are approximately 57,000 year round residents, but our best
estimates are that we grow to between 180,000 to 200,000 residents during the summer. Our roads lead
to destinations and pass-through to other locations. We all know what gridlock is. 40% of our seasonal
gridlock is getting to the Town of East Hampton. That is the end of the cul-de-sac.
Political realities and practicalities will help to shape a viable recommendation regarding costs and
implementation. There are some general observations that reflect, somewhat accurately, the positive
view of the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association. It is the general consensus that new peak
roads will not be a part of any practical solution for long-term transportation issues here on the East End.
6
,
,
I
I
I
\
1
Over the last twenty years, each of the East End Towns has worked vigorously in a number of ways to
sustain a particular quality of life and to protect the natural resources that are the major underpinning
of our economy. Any decisions related to transportation will have, at their core, solutions that work to
sustain the quality of life that we have strived to maintain here. For that reason, it is more likely that
there will be many moderate, smaller fixes that will take place either on County or Town roads -
measures that will move traffic more quickly and sensibly.
We should also consider alternative modes of transportation.
We feel very strongly that the Long Island Rail Road needs to
reconsider its philosophy regarding the East End. The fact that
we have only a limited number of scheduled trains moving the
length of the track system clouds the opportunity for creating a
light rail system. These systems are up and running elsewhere
in the Country and we should have that alternative provided
to us on the East End.
. .. the Long Island Rail
Road needs to reconsider
its philosophy regarding
the East End.
I do not believe it takes any serious engineering to coordinate
long...term train service with short, unobstructed, into...town
shuttle service. We could move people a lot more quickly.
This would provide the impetus needed for local towns to give
serious thought to pursuing grant money or to implement small shuttles that could be used within the
villages and hamlets in the Towns. This is the old Barry Commoner theme - everything is ultimately
connected to everything - you just need to discover the connections.
Though united in effort, each of the East End Towns has separate Comprehensive Plans which envision
their own distinctive futures for their respective Township. We cannot go it alone. We need a regional
approach to a number of issues.
We cannot go it alone. We
need a regional approach to
a number of issues.
It was several years ago that my predecessors at the East
End Mayors and Supervisors, through its East End
Transportation Council, sought to look for the federal
funding that led to SEEDS, which is a regional planning
effort. SEEDS is providing us with a forum to examine a
whole range of ideas and concepts that will ultimately
result in a series of recommendations.
Through common interests and agreements we will be able to coordinate our winsportation labors and
land use policies in an effort to facilitate smart growth.
7
~
Section 3:
THE SEEDS PROCESS
An ongoing regional transportation initiative, Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS),
is a consensus-drive transportation and land use planning process. SEEDS began in 2001 through a
partnership between the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (NYMTC) and the five East
End towns - East Hampton, Southampton, Riverhead,
Southold, and Shelter Island. Local residents can
participate in SEEDS through monthly meetings held
throughout the East End region.
. .. SEEDS is striving to
create a regional consensus
on regional planning priorities.
The SEEDS process can be summarized as a three step
process; data gathering, computer modeling, and
analysis and policy formulation. Large expenses and
political conflict can bring new transportation initiatives to a halt. For these reasons, SEEDS is striving
to create a regional consensus on regional planning priorities. This will help minimize opposition to
recommendations and maximize political support for appropriating the necessary funds. To guide this
process, SEEDS constructed a five by five scenario matrix outlining different pairs of land use and
transportation planning alternatives.
Table 1: SEEDS LAND USE SCENARIOS
Scenario 1 Baseline Condition. Assumes that population and employment growth
and the construction to support that growth will continue based upon
economic and demographic trends and existing zoning regulations.
Scenario 2 Up zoning. Reduced population growth through various planning tools
such as up zoning and purchasing development rights. The net effect is
a 50% reduction in the total regional build out (permits, new
construction, etc.) from Scenario 1.
Scenario 3 Concentrated Development. The growth and new construction
projected in Scenario 1 is concentrated in higher density settlements,
including existing villages and hamlets. This allows for greater control
over sprawl without adding constraints on the rate of new construction.
Also allows for greater protection of farmlands, groundwater recharge
zones, and other environmentally sensitiv~ lands.
Scenario 4 Managed Development. Maintain existing village densities by
expanding the size of existing villages and hamlets and directing new
growth and construction into existing and new settlements. This
scenario controls future sprawl but at a lower density than Scenario 3.
Scenario 5 Concentrated Development, Reduced Population. Development will be
constrained within existing and new hamlets (same as 3 and 4), but at
lower population growth rate (similar to 2).
8
,
Table 2: SEEDS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS
Scenario 1 Baseline. This scenario assumes that currently planned improvements ro
rhe rransportation grid, such as widening County Roads 58 and 39 will
be completed in coming years.
Scenario 2 Transportation Management Strategies. Improved interconnections
between bus and rail, pedestrian safety, parking enhancements,
improvements to bikeways. Goal is modest improvements in circulation
at a modest cost.
Scenario 3 Transit Focused Investments. Increase the efficiency and frequency of
transit services - bus and rail. Expand intra and inter-hamlet services.
Provide amenities like taxi stands and park and ride parking lots.
Scenario 4 Roadway Focused Investment. Expand capacity on primary and
secondary highways through road widening.
Scenario 5 Large Scale Investments. This would include expanded ferry services
and road infrastructure, a new limited access highway from
Southampton to East Hampton, and new transit hubs at Gabreski,
Calverron, and East Hampton airport with connecting shuttle trains.
~
The SEEDS matrix is displayed on the inside back cover. NYMTC has developed a computer-based
"Best Practice Model" of East End land use and transportation. The model will be calibrated for
different pairs of land use and transportation scenarios and the model will estimate a range of
transportation parameters for the year 2025. SEEDS will evaluate these computer generated results
with respect ro their potential impacts on regional transportation mobility and land use using various
"sustainable" indicators that SEEDS participants identified in 2004. SEEDS participants will use these
computer results to inform their final recommendations at the end of the planning process. The
computer model is a rool ro inform local decision making; the computer model does not determine
local transportation priorities. The public will make those determinations.
The SEEDS process is not without its pitfalls and critics. The region, for example, is divided on ferry
services. North Fork residents believe a South Fork ferry is needed to reduce traffic on the North Fork,
but many South Fork residents oppose that idea. The premise behind SEEDS is that the computer
model can help residents understand the positive and negative impacts of many transit alternatives,
including a South Fork ferry. Perhaps that information can help resolve the current ferry impasse. But,
will local citizens and leaders embrace the model's results as valid? Does the modeling exercise have
sufficient credibility? Many residents complain that they are not aware of SEEDS and do not feel that
the process represents them. As the process moves forward and the model results are publicized, will
those sentiments dissipate or intensifY? These questions are the kinds of issues and questions that local
citizens and elected officials need to ask of SEEDS. These issues can best be addressed through dialogue.
The SEEDS process is a consensus building process. That means that particular proposals will become
final recommendations only if those proposals enjoy strong support among a broad cross-section of the
East End population. In the realm of transportation planning, this is nothing short of revolutionary!
Transportation plans are notorious for being foisted upon local populations and only proceed after costly
and lengthy lawsuits and political delays. Public weariness rowards transportation planning is
understandable given that historic context, but the SEEDS process is not a spectator sport, it requires
public participation.
9
~
Peter Leibowitz, AKRF, Inc.
Transportation Modeling
Modeling is just a tool. It is not a plan. It's not the
outcome. It's not a recommendation. It's a way to
provide a framework of analysis that communities
participating in a study can move forward together with
information that's somewhat useful.
What does the model do, and why is it an important
tool for regional planning? (We emphasize that it is
only a tooL) It is important in that it establishes the
basis for evaluating future conditions. Basically, it
creates a template for comparing different conditions
based on different planning initiatives, and it links land use and transportation planning - which for us
- is the key here.
If you think about it, transportation is totally dependent on land use because it exists to serve only
what's being generated on or around it: The transportation system is used by the people who live
here, who work here, or who visit here. And really, there's no way to separate the two. Part of the
problem with the last couple of decades is that we have been separating land use from transportation
decision-making.
Traffic planners acknowledge and use this land use connection all the time, but only in a reactive way.
The Trip-Generation Plan Handbook is the "bible" of traffic planning, and it has something like 600
land-use categories that are used to give us a trip-generation rate for any specific type of development.
We then have an estimate _ usually as a rate of vehicle trips per hour - of what's going to happen if
we build something (i.e. a project might generate twenty trips every minute). These trip rates are
developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This is static and incremental, and only
focuses on a small part of the puzzle, but this is how we estimate transportation demand. We generally
do not use trip generation to examine how transportation is affected by region-wide changes in land
use, but this is increasingly the focus of studies like SEEDS.
We're definitely evolving away form a static land use_transportation relationship and trying to get a
better understanding of the relationship in a proactive way. And this is changing the traditional "hats"
worn by agencies such as the State's DOT whose historic role has been to build transportation capacity
(mainly roads) to meet growth in traffic created by new land use patterns. That's been the solution. But
around New York State this is no longer the case and these state and regional agencies have really come
to the understanding that they can't do that anymore - they're told they can't by vocal opposition and
by limited funds. They are really taking this to heart and bringing much more sophisticated planning
analyses to almost every project. Pilot projects, like SEEDS, are critical early actions.
10
Bernie Kalus, P.E.
Chas. H. Sells, Inc.
One of the most difficult tasks in the SEEDS process is quantifying the benefits and the impacts of all
the alternatives and ideas that have developed during the public outreach and visioning process. And
modeling is a tool that helps us do that. And as a lot of people have pointed out, it is just a tool that
allows decision makets to narrow down or refine alternatives. That is really the purpose of the model.
There are many types of models, but the two basic types of models that are used in these types of studies
are Operational and Travel Demand. Operational models basically analyze how much traffic load can be
processed by the transportation system. In its simplest form, it measures volume and compares it to
capacity, and gives you a level of service, A through F, with A being the best and F being the worst.
That's in its simplest terms.
120,000 l ~!
115~!~1;!~
8o~~
;;<lil",Sl
~ ~ ~
.. t::..
..!llfilMiI
.. ~9j~l~a~R~g '!If
s ~ ~ ,~t:l f,f
~MNl;
..
30.000
25,000
10,000
5,000
o ~
iiiii~iil!~il!I!II'il.il!ll~
'UR
s.-::o.., ...,,"1IIiIr.........,.0Ial........... s.rrotkeo..r ~otNllk Wed:&.
Annual Daily Traffic Volumes, NYS RT 27.
What we're going to focus on today is more the Travel-Demand Models and they are a little
more complex in that they predict the future. The SEEDS model builds upon the NYS DOT's
LITP2000 project.
So, how do we forecast the future? Land use is the basis for Travel Demand Models. It depends on
accurate and up-to-date land-use forecasts. Those land-uses are then used to generate trips, distribute
them over the roadway network - the transportation network - by load and then ultimately by route
so that at the end of the process you get future volumes on individual sections of the network.
In addition to the East End, NYMTC has also worked with Orange County, Since that County is
further along its planning process, the East End can learn some valuable lessons from their experiences.
The Orange County Study actually focused on the South Eastern portion of Orange County - the
Towns of Monroe, Woodbuty and Blooming Grove. (That's where the Woodbury Commons is located.)
It's roughly 55 miles northwest of New York City. It has great schools and relatively affordable housing,
This has not gone unnoticed within the past ten years, The real estate market has been red hot, with a
recent doubling of prices. Metro North is the main provider of rail service to the area.
11
Since 1970, the population has increased 50%. In the 2000 census, the County itself experienced 11 %
growth _ which made it the fourth largest gain in New York State. Only Hudson County had a larger
rate of gain in population, and the study area itself, just the Southeast comer of the County,
experienced over a 20% increase in population. They are facing the same growth issues that you are.
There's a lot of land available. It's a smaller study area, but it's not as developed yet. It doesn't really
have the infrastructure that is present here.
SEEDS and Orange County are using similar methodologies. Both areas developed scenarios (see
Tables 1 and 2) through public workshops. The land use - transportation scenarios form a matrix of
scenario combinations (see the inside back cover). Each pair of combinations is put into this "black
box" called the model, and then out come these evaluation parameters - such as amount of miles
traveled, and air quality.
After evaluating these parameters like pollutant loads and we can take that information and refine
the scenarios and rerun the model to generate more optimal solutions. So this is really an iterative
approach. It is an iterative, consensus-building approach to get a preferred alternative to existing
transportation planning and infrastructure.
You would have to be the Wizard of Oz to see into the black box, but it is actually a set of complex
mathematical functions that people much smarter than myself run and that's James Kahng. The model
breaks down the study area into T AZs, Transportation Analysis Zones. So these are manageable packets
of area where you can store and manipulate data and they essentially correspond to the census block
groups so the data from the census can be imported into the model. So, you define your TAZs, and each
TAZ _ the developable area in the TAZ, has the ability to generate trips and attract trips.
As an example, in the pm peak hour between 5 and 6 pm during the weekday, a TAZ that has a lot of
office space will generate trips. A TAZ that has residential or more commercial uses will attract trips.
The model then balances the trips generated from and attracted to the T AZs by the distance, use, and
overall attractiveness of the zone. The model then distributes these trips by travel mode and distance.
And it takes into account congestion on individual transit links. If a road becomes more congested in
the future, the model will then divert them around to the local roadways. So then you get an overall
picture of what is going to happen in the future.
So what is in the TAZ? The TAZ is really the building block of the model. It includes all the roads and
transit links, demographic information of the residents so that it can tabulate trips by use - the inbound
work trips, outbound commercial trips, recreational trips, etc. The other thing that happens is to take
all those trips and distribute them onto the transportation network.
How do we develop the inputs to the model of a TAZ? Here's a famous case, and you may have heard of
this T AZ in the news - T AZ- 2469 in the Town of East Hampton. That's just the location of the T AZ in
East Hampton. You start, like you do in every model, with existing conditions. You have park areas, the
existing commercial districts, and then the residential district. And trips are generated from those areas
using the trip generation rates or other equations for the different types of land use. Then what we do is
change the way land is used, based on the SEEDS land use scenarios ( see Table 1). If development in
concentrated around a village center, which is one of the scenarios in this project, the model will
calculate how these land use changes affect transportation demands for each of these TAZs.¥
12
James Kahng, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.
Long Island Transportation Plan (LITP) Travel Demand Model
With modeling we basically try to emulate or replicate your own choice
behavior with respect to travel. Not each of us would make the same choice,
which range from someone who bikes to work for more than a hour
everyday, rain or shine, to others who would never get out of their car to
take public transportation. Others suggested that if we could provide good,
nice, reliable public transportation, they might consider using them. Travel
demand modeling can consider and incorporate various opinions that reflect
choice- behaviors.
I'd like to emphasize that the Long Island Transportation Plan (LITP) Travel Demand Model that is the
basis for the SEEDS study (as well as for the Nassau Hub), is developed to be an objective planning
tool. It is objective in the sense that it gives equal footing to both the highway and other transit
options. They share the same Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) system structure. (TAZs are small
geographic areas used in transportation planning to summarize demographic characteristics and travel
data.) The computer model treats highway and transit options on an equal basis. They are designed to
compete with each other ~ to see which one is going to win or be more effective. Instead of assuming
that everyone would take this mode or that mode of transportation, the model actually calculates the
probability of a particular person or particular TAZ using a given mode. For instance, for a particular
TAZ, it may be projected that 20% of the travelers use transit, 70% may decide to drive solo, and 5%
may decide to walk, ete.
..
..
(;
:c
~
'0
.8
E
=
z
38000
36000
34000
32000
30000
28000
28000
24000
22000
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
o
. NYS Rt 25
. NYS Rt 27
Sep Oct Nav Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut Aug
Month
Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes NYS RT 25 and RT 27.
13
w
Other important factors or components of modeling include socioeconomic forecasts. On the East End,
some people may choose to drive around here for the sake of driving because it's nice and beautiful -
especially when there's no traffic. But in most cases, people travel for a particular reason - to work, to
shop, to go to a restaurant or social gathering and 60 on. Therefore, socioeconomic forecasts are very
important component of modeling. Zonal socioeconomic data includes households, employment, and
types of employment. It's not sufficient just to see how many of them are there, but also how they are
distribured over a given geographic area. It could make a difference if there are 10,000 employees spread
over a relatively large area or if 10,000 employees are concentrated in a small, high-density area.
Employment density is likely to affect people's travel choices. These factors (population, income,
densiry) help us to understand regional transportation demand - how many people want to move from
point A to point B.
The "supply side," the levels-of-service of the transportation system, also influences the choices we
make as well. Transportation supply includes the frequency and capacity of train and bus service, road
capaciry, and other issues related to transportation infrastructure.
While this particular model is designed primarily to provide detailed forecast of travel within Long
Island, it also recognizes that a significant number of people, but not the majority in any sense, do
commute to areas outside of Long Island, particularly Manhattan. In order to present an accurate
representation of these various and diverse travel characteristics, the five boroughs of New York City
are also represented in the model. This model is very comprehensive, with more than 3,200 TAZs. In
most cases, a TAZ represents a census tract. However, the East End gets special (i.e., more detailed)
treatment _ most of the T AZs representing the East End are based on censuS Block Group or Block
geography since a census tract in the East End generally encompasses too large an area to serve as a
single TAZ.
The model transportation network contains over 33,000 highway links, including county roads and
srate highways, and more than 67,000 transit links, including access and egress links. Actually, the
transit model network includes more links than the highway network, and represents buses, commuter
rail (i.e., LIRE), and Ferry systems.
Maior steDs in a Travel Demand Model:
Travel demand models have several major components: trip generation, trip destination, mode and time
period choice, and network assignment. For each TAZ we estimate trip generation and trip destination
quantities. The purpose of the model is to calculate these trip quantities and then determine the most
likely modes, times, and paths of travel.
Trip generation tries to capture important factors such as trip purpose - because depending on what
rype of trip you make, your trip making choice-behavior may differ. You don't go shopping at eight
o'clock in the morning. You go to work at eight o'clock in the'morning because the work journey
is usually the main recurring activity for many travelers. Many other factors influence trip generation,
including household size, number of workers, income level, and auto ownership. We gather this
inventory of potential factors then determine the relative weight of factors by conducting
statistical analyses.
14
d
For trip destination, we look at amount of employment and employment type - retail, service, or basic
(e.g., manufacturing), and households. For example, retail businesses tend to generate .the most number
of trips per employee. Other factors that influence travelers' trip making decisions include how long it
takes, income compatibility (that is, how much income is there to be earned), etc.
After you decide where to go, you need to decide how to get there, which we call "travel mode choice."
This again, depends on socioeconomic factors such as household income, transportation systems and
service performance, out-of-pocket costs such as fares, gasoline, and maintenance. Also, th~ mode
choice is. affected by what type of land-use prevails at the trip destination. For instance, Manhattan is
very dense and walkable. Thus, transit may be the preferred mode if one is to travel to Manhattan.
Other destination places, such as stlburban or rural areas, may have plenty of parking. So, driving may
be the preferred mode. Therefore, land-use is one of the major factors in mode choice modeling.
>:
;
j
,
f
j
.,
From the very beginning, the modeling process attempted to consider a wide range of travel modes such
as drivers traveling alone, drivers sharing a ride, or people taking transit in the form of commuter rail
with a fixed schedule, local and express buses or ferries. The model even considers non-motorized
options like walking.
In order for the model to be a useful tool to the SEEDS project, we developed a more detailed TAZ
system and highway and transit network on the East End. As part of the SEEDS study, various land use
scenarios have evolved (See Table 1). Each scenario will generate different simulated transportation
demand responses in the computer model. Similarly, the different transportation supply scenarios
(See Table 2) will affect regional travel mode and demand.
15
1J
Section 4:
REGIONAL VIEWS ON SEEDS
The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
(NYMTC) is a regional council of government. Its region
includes New York City, Long Island, and the Lower
Hudson Valley. And these regional councils are required
by federal transportation legislation so that these regional
transportation areas will be eligible for federal
transportation funds.
i;
1-"
i
I
I
I
Gerry Bogacz
Chief Planner, NYMTC
County Executive Levy is a member of NYMTC as well as is the New York State DOT. Basically, the
federal government asked metropolitan regions to come together and plan for and institute how to use
federal dollars so that's what the body is. It's not an agency; it's a regional council.
In 1999, NYMTC adopted a new regional goal, which was to bring together land use and transportation
a little more closely than had previously been the case. And in parts of the region, originally, land use
and transportation had been very close but over the last several decades, they had drifted farther and .
farther apart, a function of the fact that transportation is largely defined regionally, and land use
decisions are local.
We can't understand the roor problems of transportation congestion without discussing the
disassociation of land use planning and rransportation planning - which can lead to siruations where
land is consumed, transportation capacity is consumed or distorted, and energy's consumed. And
bringing these two parts together is a really importation issue.
We need to think regionally and act locally.
One means of implementing this new approach to planning is sustainable development studies. Now,
we call these studies, but they're really consensus building processes, and "study" is really a misnomer.
The point of these efforts is to start a planning process rhat brings together the agencies responsible for
transportation decisions, local municipalities who're responsible for local land use decisions, and local
residents and businesses to develop a planning consensus for land use and transportation. When that
consensus is reached, we can rhen use the folks who are at the table to implement the preferred land
use and the transportation alternatives.
Starting this was a challenge. There's no question it's experimental. And we do not know, and did nor
know how this approach might work in real obligations. So, four pilot studies were identified
throughout the region. They were identified through our regional transportation plan that we must file
with the federal government and also identified through regional planning efforts like LITP. One of
them was the Sustainable East End Development Strategies initiative, or SEEDS. The others were in
Westchester County and Rockland County in the Hudson Valley, and there's one in progress right now
in Coney Island in New York.
16
What have we found in the Rockland and Westchester studies? Consensus is possible, believe it or not.
But implementation is a continuing challenge so these processes don't end when the study is over, but
rather need to go forward into the implementation process. There needs to be a focus for as long as it
takes to implement. Some implementation is short term and can be done rapidly. Other projects are
more extensive and require longer lead times, like County Route 39 in Southampton. Implementation
is possible because all the parties that need to implement these elements are already at the table.
SEEDS is one of the four, but obviously it is the largest and most complex - five towns, nine villages.
Logically, it's probably the largest selection of municipalities that we could bring into an effort like this.
It is a feasible process because you have a history of working
together on the East End. I don't think you could take just
fourteen municipalities and say, "work together." I think there
has to be a history and culture of working together.
,n
11
n
SEEDS was started in April 2001. It started with extensive
community visioning in both land use and transportation
futures. The land use and transportation scenarios did not
come out of my head or the head of any particular individual-
it came out of everyone's head. It's a grassroots process; a
compilation of what we heard. Compiling the scenarios was
controversial and we had to work through several particular
sticking points to get the scenarios that everyone could live
with. But like everything else in this process, the scenarios
represent a consensus of everyone's input.
The model is a tool;
the model does not make
the decision. The people
in this room - elected
officials, transportation
planners, businessmen,
and citizens - make
the decisions.
One of the reasons it's taken three years is because consensus building is a lengthy process. The more
players there are, the more actors are involved, the more time consuming it is to build consensus. But it
is possible to do with patience. Workshops were held in 2001 and 2002 to try to get the broadest
collection of needs and potential solutions.
Our next step is to use a computer simulation model to test these scenarios. The model is a tool; the
model does not make the decision. The people in this room - elected officials, transportation planners,
businessmen, and citizens - make the decisions. The solution that is chosen is yours. The model is a
tool; you're basically playing - for those who know it - SimCity with the East End. You're testing
various ideas. Sometimes those ideas are significantly out of the box. There are big ticket items,
including expansion of Long Island Rail Road service. What would happen if you ~xpanded Long Island
Rail Road service in a significant way? We will test that. We're going to test a crossing between Long
Island and Connecticut -both a ferry crossing and a physical crossing.
The results of these tests will be taken back out to the community in a series of meetings. We will
explain the model results so the public understands the projected impacts of the different scenarios.
The goal of those conversations is to develop a consensus on our future. How do we want transportation
and land use to evolve from where we are today? It will be complicated. The computer generates a lot
of information. We're working hard with the study committee to identify [performance] measures that
can summarize these results so that you can better understand them and we can better understand
them. The objective is to understand and discuss what the results mean to the East End. And hopefully,
that will lead to the selection of both a transportation future and a land use future that sustain one
another. And that's the ultimate objective. And then the people who are at the table can get to work
on implementation.
17
W
!
One final observation _ it's really imporranr rhar the municipal officials and the municipal boards
become more consistent in their participation in the SEEDS process. I realize that this is difficult over a
long period of time. A lot of work goes into this. But now is the time for local officials - elected
officials, elected board members - to pay attention and get involved. We have a very dedicated set of
stakeholders who are involved here .they have been slogging through this for months and months and
are to be commended. They are the face and the representatives of the East End - both the residents
and the businesses.
I
I
l
,
!
Wayne Ugolik, Director of Regional Planning and Programming,
New York State Department of Transportation
The New York State Department of Transportation's focus on the East End has been preservation of its
infrastructure and safety improvements. To the adage, "Build it and they will come," we can add
another: "Don't build it, and they still will come."
The Long Island Transportation Plan to manage congestion was confronted by then.State
Transportation Commissioner White with a perplexing problem: how to justify the need for additional
capacity on a two.mile stretch of the Northern State Parkway between the Meadowbrook and Wantagh
Parkways. The Commissioner was concerned that we had not looked at a transit solution to solve the
congestion problem there.
Planners realize that you can't solve a congestion problem on a two.mile stretch of parkway with a
transit solution without looking at a much bigger picture. You have to, in fact, look at all of Long Island
because people travel from everywhere and they go to everywhere. You have to figure out what type of
public transportation makes the most sense for a suburban sprawl environment such as Long Island. For
the first time the realization that we needed to develop a comprehensive, multi.modal plan for all of
Nassau and Suffolk, grew to a consultant selection process and we eventually hired Parsons. Brinckerhoff.
We went public in 1997 with a live, televised Town Hall meeting on transportation, which was
broadcast on Channel 21. One hundred twenry thousand people warched that show and we received
1,000 telephone calls. Some were questions that we answered on air. Most were comments or
suggestions for transportation improvements. We catalogued all those questions and comments and put
them up on the study Web site (www.LlTP2000.com). You can see what people were saying in 1997.
They weren't saying things much different than what people are saying today.
The LlTP study started with the people - listening to what they had to say. We also formed
subcommittees made up of public volunteers and transportation professionals who met over a period
of six to seven months to discuss congestion problems and ways to deal with them. The study team
filtered through all the ideas to come up with recommendations for improvements that make sense for
Long Island.
The Technical Advisory Committee, which was formed just before the TV show, was comprised of 40
individuals representing 34 or so different agencies, municipal governments, other interests, and 6
members of the general public. The Technical Advisory Committee discussed various proposals and the
consultant team's analyses, and then would vote - majority rules. The study team developed
recommendations based on the Technical Advisory Committee's direction. That was the way the study
process kept agencies involved and how it remained connected to the broadest interests of the people.
We also recognized that we had to sort through all the different alternatives in an unbiased way. Therefore,
18
er a
,f
ad
its
11
Igh
md
,f
or
,ff.
It
e
~,
we developed a very sophisticated computer model of travel and traffic for Long Island, and of the entire
transportation system within Nassau and Suffolk Counties, into Queens, and into Brooklyn and Manhattan.
We modeled the highway system, the Long Island Rail Road, and also the New York City subway
system. We modeled all of the bus routes in Suffolk and Nassau Counties and the New York bus system.
The model also forecasts future travel demand - where people will be coming from, where they will be
going to, and what modes of travel they're likely to use. Using that model, we not only forecast future
conditions on the current transportation network, but we can also alter the network in the model - add
more trains, tracks, highway lanes, HOV lanes, and buses - whatever it was we were going to test from
all of the different proposals that came to us from the people. We could then see which proposals would
work best at managing future congestion.
We asked questions: "Would this solution reduce congestion?" "Would it improve air quality?" "Would
it improve safety?" A whole host of performance measures were used to evaluate the alternatives. After
a lengthy technical evaluation process, in 2001 the Technical Advisory Committee voted to advance a
preferred plan. After four years we had whittled all the different ideas down to a manageable number
based on what the technical modeling informed us would work best, and we connected all the pieces
into a cohesive plan for Long Island.
The Technical Advisory Committee then
directed the study team to go public - to talk
with the people about the preferred plan. A
series of public forums were held across Long
Island, which included a public information
booth at the Smith Haven Mall. At these forums
people were given the opportunity to watch a
video describing the study process and the
recommendations, and they were encouraged to
ask questions and make comments one-on-one
with the consultant team. We also asked people
to fill out a survey form about how they felt
about the options and to make written comments. Overall, more than 1,500 peQple participated in this
part of the LiTP public involvement process. About 70%
of the comments that were made about the proposed plan were positive.
The challenge to develoPing new
transit solutions for Long Island is
to provide a fast, reliable, modem
transit system to get people where
they want to go within Long Island
without using their cars.
The preferred plan, recommended by the Technical Advisory Committee and presented in these public
forums, includes a proposal for a new rapid transit system for Long Island. The Long Island Rapid
Transit System would focus on serving travel within Long Island, where most Long Islanders start and
end trips. (It is a misperception that most Long Islanders go to New York City every day. Only 11 % of
Long Island commuters go into Manhattan.)
The challenge to developing new transit solutions for Long Island is to provide a fast, reliable, modern
transit system to get people where they want to go within Long Island without using their cars. The
proposed Long Island Rapid Transit system would complement the service provided by the Long Island
Rail Road, the busiest commuter railroad in the country, which is focused on getting people into
Manhattan. The proposed system involves modern over-the-road transit vehicles that would travel on
new priority lanes (HOV) - with priority given to transit vehicles - along portions of the
Meadowbrook, Southern State and Sagtikos Parkways so that the transit vehicles would travel faster
providing users of the new system with a time savings advantage over driving alone.
19
We also learned through the technical evaluations that there is no one modal solution that will solve
the congestion problem. The unbiased technical modeling informed us that we also needed to balance
select highway improvements with the transit proposals. The recommendations in the preferred plan
include additional highway lanes over a 20-25 year period. Although we started with transit solutions,
we also ended up with some highway improvement proposals.
Encouraged by the public's positive reaction
to the proposed plan, the Technical Advisory
Committee asked the study team to develop an
implementation strategy. The strategy lays out
how the recommendations can be implemented
between now and the year 2025.
,
[
~
J
Mass transit for most people on
Long Island means that there are
two people in the car and they can
use the HOV lane.
We are on target to release a draft plan and
implementation strategy in the fall of 2004 and
to finalize the plan in the spring of 2005 after
additional public comments are reviewed and appropriately addressed. The implementation of
individual projects identified in the plan would then move ro individual Environmental Impact Studies
during which more public involvement about project details will be sought.
Mitch Pally, Vice President
The Long Island Association for Commerce and Industry
Five quick truisms about transportation on Long Island:
1. The easiest solution ro transportation problems is for people ro live where they work. But that is
the exact opposite of how Long Island was developed. And it's even exacerbated here on the
East End by the lack of affordable housing. If everybody lived where they worked, we'd get rid of
a lot of transportation problems.
2. There are transportation solutions to every transportation problem. But are there politically
acceptable solutions?
3. Mass transit for mosr people on Long Island means that there are two people in the car and they
can use rhe HOV lane. That's masS transit. It's not getting on the railroad. Most people would
not dream of doing that.
4. 95% of the people on Long Island would rather be in a car - even if the car is in a traffic jam.
They don't want to be with people. They'd rather listen to their radio, or whatever - which
means, the only way to substantially increase bus rider ship is to give the buses priority lanes.
Because if the bus is in the same traffic jam as the car, people will not go on the bus.
5. Every time someone gets on a bus or a train, the County and the State of New York loses money.
So, it's not just a question of buying the bus - for which there is plenty of money, there's more
federal and state money to buy the bus than anything else - it's the issue of operating costs. If
you put 50 people on the bus, the County and State lose money times 50. Somebody has to
make that money up. In the past, we have relied on a variety of ways to do that, including
property taxes. Obviously, Suffolk County subsidized the bus system. Every time you pay your
telephone bill or buy something in a store you pay a MTA tax. Every time you go over the
Throgs Neck Bridge, 75% of the money goes to subsidize mass transit.
20
.
e
At the Long Island Association, we've come up with what we believe are the five most important
transportation projects on Long Island. Unfortunately, because of density issues, none of the five
projects are on the East End. They're something that would help the East End. But they're not on the
East End.
s
,
~
1. East Side access for the LIRE will substantially increase the opportunity to move people not only
to New York City, but from New York City to work places on Long Island. 20% of the work
force on Long Island lives in NYC and most commute by car. We want to give them the
opportunity to take the railroad.
2. The cross-harbor freight tunnel between Brooklyn and Long Island. 97% of all the freight that
comes on and off of Long Island comes by truck. That is 20% higher than any other region in
the Country. Why? Because the train tracks stop in New Jersey. To get to Long Island by train
you've got to cross the Hudson River in Poughkeepsie and then come down to Long Island. It
also means building a multimodal facility at Pilgrim State to let the trains get there and then use
trucks to get the freight from there to their final destination. That is a very expensive but very
important project.
3. We need a third track on the LIRE - from Bellrose to Hicksville. That is probably the most
important transportation project on Long Island. It's only been studied for the last 30 years. It
will allow the railroad to: increase its freight operation, increase its operation on the Oyster Bay
line, and on the main line to Ronkonkoma. That line can then provide more through service,
which is what people want, rather than stopping 20 times.
The Nassau Hub. What are we going to do with the main focus of the Nassau County area, with
the new coliseum and new convention center?
.n
lies
4.
tis 5.
lof
6.
r.ey
1
Route 347 has become the granddaddy of bad transportation in Suffolk County. It's been looked
at for 45 years, and it will be looked at for another 5-10 years. The problem with Route 347, like
Route 39, is that if the main route does not work, people will find alternatives. It's not that the
traffic goes away. People find alternatives. Where do they find them? They find them on the
local roads where they shouldn't be. This is why the local road traffic has increased substantially.
"Short-term" means 10 years. That's a short-term improvement - what's going to happen in the
next 10 years? And I hope we're not here to years from now trying to figure out why County
Route 39 did not get done. And that should be one of the focal points - not just the planning
process, but being able to engage the implementation process.
Lisa Tyson, Director
Long Island Progressive Coalition
ney.
e
Q
it
i
~
To discuss the idea of a new multimodal system
for Long Island, we have to incorporate together
affordable housing, workforce housing, land use
and transportation, and energy and the
environment. How do we do that? Let's replace
LIRE cars with light rail vehicles, which run
more frequently. Rather than having a road-widening project there could be a public train project. Let's
build a light rail system. Let the system become that. Let the workers come on a light rail system to
downtowns and have a multi-modal system - with little "jitneys" for getting around.
Let's replace LIRR cars with
light rail vehicles, which run
more frequently.
21
The Long Island Association and the Progtessive Coalition have a lot in common such as wanting
east side access, which is certainly a priority for Long Island. The cross-harbor freight tunnel is also a
priority. The third track for the LIRE must be built. The Nassau Hub is a good project. Their modeling
process is looking at transit-oriented development and incorporating land use. The question being asked
is not "what do we have roday?" It is "what are we going to have tomorrow?" We're going to be
redeveloping Long Island forever. It's constant.
You just can't widen roads anymore. It doesn't work. It's called induced demand. First you widen the
road, and then there's enough induced congestion so that you have to widen another lane. One of the
ways to deal with that was for the DOT to build HOY lanes. The idea of HOY lanes came out of the
Clean Air Act in 1991. It was an environmentalist's idea. It was a great approach, but only if it was
using an existing lane'- and that's where the problem is.
What using an existing lane would do is increase
congestion, forcing some people into public transit.
Instead, we built another lane, but we didn't build a
public transit system. Right now is the time for Long
Island to build a public transit system. We're going to
be here a long time. People say, "You're talking 20 years
down the line. Will we have the density for that?" We
will eventually have the density. If we focus development
on our downtown centers and our hamlets we can keep
natural areas open.
You just can't widen roads
anymore. It doesn't work.
It's called induced demand.
We need to determine the cartying capacity on the East End. How much can it hold? We can heighten
development in some areas, and leave other areas alone. Citizens have to be there at the table in the
planning and decision-making process - not just to be given a laundry list of ideas. We really hope the
Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) process is going to be doing that.
Computer modeling can be a scary situation, depending on how the models are designed. So, one thing
that we wanted to be clear about is that auto trips were an important indicator of what we're looking at.
We wanted to reduce vehicle miles traveled. At the end of the day, Long Island Transportation Plan
(LITP) 2000 claims to reduce auto trips by 4%, but at a cost of $5 billion dollars, and we're talking
about a huge road expansion - 55 miles of new HOY lanes, 105 miles of arterial widening, and 20 road-
widening extensions. This plan may have changed a lirtle bit because rhe Department of Transportation
(DOT) is revising its program, but it is still promoting about 1270 new buses. They call it a Rapid
Commute vehicle with rubber tires. But it is hard to get people on a bus. Also, priority lanes are
widening lanes _ new lanes and the amount of time it would take to do this construction is not factored
into the study. They know how much it's going to take. But when you look at the end result, how much
time will be lost in congestion due to construction time? ----: 20 years construction time.
Bus rapid transit is a good concept and it is used in many places in the countty. We're not against that.
It is usually used in some place where you have definite trip patterns, from point A to point B. We have
the LIRE, which is an amazing railroad. It is the largest commuter railroad in the Countty. So why
don't we just expand that and expand existing bus service rather than creating a whole new system?
The idea of new lanes is that people are going to drive to get on the bus. That is not reality for Long
Islanders. If you're in your car, you're going to continue your ride. Our Rethink LlTP2000 Coalition is
made of a coalition of over 85 organizations opposed to the DOT's plan. That LlTP2000 has a huge
. price tag, and we believe the money should go to the alternative projects that were mentioned before -
Light Rail for the East End, a third track for the LIRE, and access in the HUB.
22
lllg
;ked
1e
e
lis.
ars
,
e
lent
ep
ten
ile
ing
; at.
lad-
don
)fed
uch
at.
lave
is
e-
,
We think it's important that the SEEDS process keeps the community in the planning process. The
citizens have to be part of the plan from the very beginning. That's how you build consensus. It's a long,
hard struggle. But we're hoping we're going to build consensus to force the DOT to rethink LITP 2000.
We know there has to be something. We're not saying, "kill it" or "Let it die." We want to rethink it.
We want to make it right for Long Island. We want the citizens further involved and we want it to
reduce auto transit and congestion as well.
Drive Alone
2000 US Census Data
82%
ElJ%
78%
76%
7~'11
1!
.
l! n%
:.
70%
68%
68%
64%
62%
Riverhead Southold Southampton East Hampton Shelter Island
East End Towns
23
Section 5:
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
l'
1
US Congressman Tim Bishop
New York's First District
To discuss transportation from a federal perspective,
one needs to know what is happening in Washington
right now. Congress is considering the reauthorization
of TEA- 21, the overall surface transpottation bill for the
federal government.
One issue being consideted in this bill that's incredibly
important for New York is the share of gasoline tax
revenue that New York receives. Gasoline tax revenue is
deposited in a national Highway Trust Fund and each
state is guaranteed to get back at least 90.5% of the funds
that states contribute. New York derives more income, more support, from the gasoline tax than we pay
into the trust fund. We have made an enormous investment here in New York in mass transit, and need
to maintain current funding levels to continue our commitment to providing everyone with transportation
options. The investment in mass ttansit makes sense from numerous perspectives, not the least of which
is from an environmental standpoint.
loNG IslAND
~
A coalition of donor states, those that receive a relatively low return for their gas tax investment, led
by Texas Congressman Tom DeLay, developed a new and unfair proposal. Our state and other similarly
situated states created the Fair Alliance for Intermodal Reinvestment (FAIR) Coalition, which remains
an active bipartisan group of the states that would be harmed by altering payments to the Highway
Trust Fund. The donor state initiative would guarantee each state gets back 95% of funds paid into the
Highway Trust Fund. If this proposal were to be adopted, New York will take it on the chin. Our state
may lose a couple of hundred million dollars during the six years of the highway bill if the DeLay
proposal goes through, which is why the New York delegation on the Committee is working closely
across party lines to fight this proposal.
Congress needs to address the problem of what spending levels will be in the final bill, and how we deal
with the threat of a presidential veto. The President has not vetoed a single bill since he took the oath
of office. Now he's faced with a $520 billion deficit this year (2004) and an estimated deficit that could
be higher than $370 billion next year, therefore the President has indicated a willingness to toe the line
on spending beginning with the transportation bill. Those deficit projections don't include a dime for
our continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after September 30th of this year. I don't think
there's a soul alive who thinks we'll have no presence in Iraq and Afghanistan come late September
and our ongoing presence in these countries will require at least an extra $50 billion. That will result in
a deficit in fiscal '05 of at least $420 billion. So with that as context, the President has threatened to
veto any bill that comes in over $256 billion.
The Senate has passed a $318 billion bill and the House is probably, we hope, going to pass something
that would be in the neighborhood of $290 billion over six years. Then we'll go to conference with the
Senate and hopefully be able to build the number up closer to what the Senate adopted and then see
what happens with the veto threat. My guess, and this is just a guess, is that in the final analysis the
24
1e
is
1ds
lay
,ed
on
ich
I
ly
ins
~e
c
leal
th
lId
ine
'r
: in
19
he
.
President will be hard pressed to veto the final bill, and I say that because this is both an infrastructure
bill and it is a jobs bill. With the job situation in our country being what it is, I don't think the
President could justify vetoing a bill that will undoubtedly create jobs. The history is there; for every
$1 billion the federal government invests in infrastructure, we create 47,000 new jobs.
Creating jobs is incredibly important because it is an economic multiplier. The economic return that
we get back when we spend a billion dollars on infrastructure is a little over $6 billion, so this has an
enormous potential to jump-start the economy. This kind of investment could help to grow the
employment rate that we've all been talking about being stagnant during this jobless recovery. So, I
think the President will face significant pressure to avoid a veto.
A major reason reauthorizing the transportation bill is
important is because it's estimated that 32% of our
nation's roads are now substandard and 48% of bridges
are substandard. Estimates also put congestion costs at
$67 billion a year due to the time we spend in our cars
that we could all be doing something more productive.
And we expend about 6 billion gallons of gasoline a
year simply because of the time we spend idling in
traffic. These are all reasons why I believe a national
investment in transportation is a wise llse of
government resources.
32% of our nation's roads are
now substandard and 48%
of bridges are substandard.
... national investment in
transportation is a wise use
of government resources.
Let me talk a little bit about New York. The
transportation bill will hopefully include three major projects that are important and beneficial with
respect to traffic in our region. One is the Second Avenue subway. The second project is East Side
Access; a Long Island Rail Road project slated to be completed by 2012. We have asked for $900
million for that project. Congress is also seeking funding for the third track of the Long Island Rail
Road along the main line, which will allow for a reverse commute. In total that's $3.5 billion,
almost $4 billion.
I'm optimistic that we're ultimately going to get this done. The reason I'm optimistic is that I think
that the job creation aspect is so compelling that in the final analysis the President will recognize the
need for this bill and he'll be unable to veto something that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
That is pretty much the federal perspective on where we now stand. It's going to play itself out in the
near future.
25
Section 6:
LOCAL VOICES
Robert DeLuca, President'
Group for the South Fork
Traffic assessmenr figures recenrly released by the Town of Southampton in the May 2004 Transportation
Element of it's Comprehensive Plan confirm what has been understood by anyone driving the traffic
gaunrlet from the Shinnecock Canal to points East for some time. In short, traffic is hotrendous and
getting worse just about every year.
Southampton's figures reveal a rate of traffic
growth on County Road 39 (North Road) of
approximately 40% during the last 18 years.
Notably average daily volume has grown about
30% more rapidly than peak season volumes,
which experienced a more modest, 27% increase
during the same 18-year period.
i.
-,j;'
\\\1
~-,
.',
. .. traffic is horrendous and getting
worse just about every year.
Today, on an average summer day, some 38,000 vehicles cross the Shinnecock Canal. In July and
August summer volume adds 9,000 additional vehicles to the mix every weekday. On most weekdays,
65% of all vehicles contain only one occupant, with nearly 90% of all vehicles being assigned to the
category of two-axle, four-wheel vehicle (cars, vans and light trucks).
. ., on an average summer day, some
38,000 vehicles cross the Shinnecock Canal.
Although much of the recent
increase in volume has been
attributed to the last decades'
boom in new construction, volume
is unlikely to subside any time
soon. In fact, much of the same
construction that spawned the
now infamous morning "trade parade", will in all likelihood, require long-term commitments to
maintenance, landscaping, property management and remodeling that will keep construction and
service-related traffic volume robust for the years ahead. At the same time, Southampton's 21 % growth
in population has increased traffic from other sectors including government, education, retail and other
non-trade related employment activities.
For years, scientific and anecdotal assessment about the region's overburdened roadways and the
implications of major roadway expansion have fueled any number of discussions, debates, campaigns,
political promises and research efforts all aimed at solving or addressing a problem that likely touches
every local resident, worker, visitor and local business in some way (usually bad).
With the onset of this year's latest traffic management calamity (The US Open at Shinnecock Hills)
I decided to pull out nearly every report and recommendation that I could find from the last decade to
determine if there was indeed some common ground that we could work to achieve. Working on the
theory that sometime things have to get incomprehensibly bad before real change can occur, I have
made the assumption that there may indeed be a bright lining to the nearly apocalyptic traffic
congestion that this year's US Open will bring down upon the region.
)
Originally published by the Group for the South Fork. Summer 2004. The Institute for Sustainable for Sustainable
Development received permission from the Group for the South Fork to reprint this article.
26
m
~
g
ae
h
~r
)
"
In short order, I quickly found a theme that rises over and over again in the assessment and
recommendations for change that has received little if any major public opposition. You guessed
it - the railroad!
For more than a decade, residents, politicians, government planners and just about everyone who sits
stuck in their car on County Road 39 look out at the wide open track that lies dormant alongside the
roadway, has contemplated improved rail service.
What most folks have agreed upon over the years is that regular shuttle service between Westhampton
and Montauk, could make a tremendous difference by getting people out of their car and getting them
to the areas historic hamlets, villages and business centers where the vast majority of non-ttade
commerce and community activities still occur.
For just as many years the Long Island Rail Road (LIRE) has found reasons to keep the idea at bay and
absolve itself of the real need to provide local inter-hamlet transit options. Ironically, the LIRE has
moved in the opposite direction with its program of station closures, including the same one they had
to reopen at Southampton College for the US Open.
From our perspective the issue can no longer be set aside, and this summer's unprecedented ttaffic could
well be what we need to reopen a discussion of inter-hamlet train shuttles. To move LIRE, it will take
major pressure and strong leadership from our elected officials. Fortunately, the region's elected officials
have to sit in the same traffic the rest of us do and for the most part have already been supportive of
this initiative in one way or another.
With the help of every member, I believe the Group can playa pivotal role in the public campaign for
a South Fork Shuttle that will make a definable difference in the future quality of life that is enjoyed
throughout the region. We can't hope to fix it all, but with your help we can make a substantial
difference in improving our ttansportation infrastructure that remains consistent with our commitment
to protecting the local environment and maintaining rural character.
I hope you will choose to help.
27
r
i
i
,
i
,
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Contact:
US Congressman Tim Bishop
C/o Ms. Jane Finalborgo
33 Flying Point Road
Suite 119
Southampton, New York 11968
Fax: 631-696-4520
325 Middle Country Road
Suite #4
Selden, New York 11784
Fax: 631-696-2307
US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
C/o Ms. Resi Cooper
155 Pinelawn Road
Suite 250 North
Melville, New York 11747
Fax: 631-249-2825
NYS Senator Ken Lavalle
NYS Assemblyman Fred Thiele
2302 Main Street
P.O. Box 2302
Bridgehampton, New York 11932
FAX: 631-537-2836
Tell these officials that you strongly support their long-standing efforts to improve alternative means
of transportation on the South Fork and that your priority for the region is a South Fork Train Shuttle.
Tell them you understand the difficulties involved in any meaningful plan, but that a concerted effort
on one single project has the best chance of success for the region.
Ask them to pledge that they will make a bipartisan commitment to do what is best for the people of
the region and move swiftly to develop a plan of action that will produce tangible results.
Finally, let them know that this issue is of critical importance to the region and must be advanced if we
are to avoid the further expansion of highways, traffic lights and additional urbanizing growth that has
diminished the quality of life and environment in so many other areas.
28
.
Hank de Cillia 4
Market researcher & consultant, Sag Harbor
Most people know that decisions tegatding zoning and development on the East End ate made locally,
at the Village and Town levels. When it comes to decisions about ttansportation, howevet, most of
them ate not made locally. Instead, they ate made in Hauppauge, New York City and Albany. We may
get the opportunity to provide some input, but we have no control over the final decisions.
The two agencies charged with providing public transportation services here on the East End are the
Long Island Rail Road (LIRE) and the Suffolk County Transit System (SCTS). However, these
organizations have charters that mainly focus outside our region. The LIRE is the natio~'s largest
commuter railroad, providing service to several million people who travel to and from western Suffolk
and Nassau Counties into New York City every workday. The SCTS provides bus service to the nearly
one million people who live in,the five Towns of western Suffolk County.
The five Towns of eastern Suffolk County- East Hampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton and
Southold- are a significantly different environment that is not currently well served by the LIRE and
SCTS. While it is understandable that the bulk of their budget dollars go to western Long Island, the
unique needs of the East End are not well funded, or even appreciated. Each year significant dollars,
estimated to approach $20 million, are paid by East End property and home owners, and renters and
visitors. This is levied in the form of mortgage and sales tax, and some revenues go to the LIRE and
SCTS respectively. These monies far exceed the cost of public transportation services we actually
receive, so we are in effect subsidizing the services provided to Qur west.
ve
.s
The East End has about 10% of Suffolk County's year round population, but almost 40% of its land
mass. While western Suffolk has an urban/suburban population density of over 2,300 people per square
mile, the East End's rural population density is less than 400 people per square mile. (The Federal
government, by the way, now classifies areas as either 'urbanized' or 'non-urbanized 'for funding
purposes, using the figure of 1,000 people per square as the dividing line.) Clearly, we live in a non-
urbanized (rural) environment here on the East End...and the public transportation services we need are
vastly different from those of the west. Furthermore, we can't solve our East End traffic problems just by
building roads. More roads will only invite more vehicles and make our traffic problems even worse. We
need to develop new public transit services to reduce vehicle demand - both for automobiles and trucks.
Currently, public transportation on the East End meets virtually no one's needs - rherefore no one uses
what little service we have. We should start with the idea that few people have a car, and/or they do
not need one at their destination. How do we get people to where they need or want to go
conveniently and reliably?
4
Mr. De, Cillia led an .afternoon panel at the conference. At the request of the Institute, this paper was submitted in Fall 2004.
An earher draft of thiS proposal appeared in the Southampton Press in December 2003.
29
The East End needs a tural transit network, consisting of regularly scheduled shuttle trains, buses, and
ferries that can move five distinct user groups. .. year round residents, second homeowners, workers,
tourisrs and freight. ., more effectively and affordably. Each user category should have services
specifically designed for its unique needs, but on an integrated basis, as follows:
. Year Round Residents - Daily Inter-Hamler Travel, Periodic Long Distance
Travel (e.g. NYC)
. Second Homeowners - Long Distance Travel (e.g. NYC), Some Inter-Hamlet Travel
. Workers _ Daily Weekday Commuring Tourists - Weekend and Seasonal Travel
. Freight _ Weekly to Daily Rail Freight Delivery and Pick Up
The East End needs a rural transit network,
consisting of regularly scheduled shuttle
trains, buses, and ferries that can move five
distinct user groups ...
East End Transit (EETran) would
augment, not replace, use of
personal vehicles. If the public
made use of the service only 15-
20% of rhe time, we could
significantly reduce our present
road congestion and be better
prepared for future sustainable
growth. (A 2003 sutvey of over
900 workers that commute to work in the Town of Southampton revealed that 30-35% of the
responders would make daily use of an affordable rail/bus commuter service.) So, even if you don't
personally see yourself using EETran, you would still benefit by having fewer cars and ttucks on our
roads because other people will definitely make use of it.
What might East End Transit look like?
On the South Fork, the present large-scale LIRE commuter trains would terminate at Speonk
(or better at Gabreski Airport if it is developed as an intermodal transit hub). South Fork passengers
would transfet to small-scale shuttle trains (length determined by ridership) for the remainder of their
trip east. On the North Fork, the LIRE commuter trains would terminate at Ronkonkoma (or better at
Calverton if it is developed as an intermodal transit hub). North Fork passengers would also transfer to
shuttle trains for the temainder of their trip east.
These South and North Fork shuttle trains would operate on 30 minute schedules in both directions
for inter hamlet service, and be timed to make seamless connections to the LIRE commuter trains, at
Speonk and Ronkonkoma respectively, for long distance travel to and from points west.
Decommissioned rail stations like Quogue, Southampton College and Water Mill on the Montauk line
could be re-opened, and some new local stops might even be added on both lines.
New small-scale shuttle buses (replacing existing Suffolk County Transit System buses) would be
established between all rail stations and the closest East End hamlets, villages and other major tourist
and recreational destinations on the North and South Forks. They would also tun a 30 minute schedul<
in both directions and be timed to coincide with the arrival of shuttle ttains for seamless connections.
On Shelter Island, the bus service would tun on NYS Route 114, between the North and South ferries,
connecting on both forks to other buses that would take riders to final destinations, including the Cros
Sound Ferry at Orient Point on the North Fork and the Villages of Sag Harbor, Southampton and East
Hampton on the South Fork.
30
J
~
~,
e
It
o
e
Ie
s,
,ss
t
,
Depending on tider ship and route layouts, buses could operate on regular schedules and/or using a "hail
bus" method that could pick people up nearer to their homes, for the ultimate in rider convenience.
One critical aspect of providing effective bus services, especially to second homeowners, would be the
development of parking lots to leave automobiles on the East End while using a "park and ride"
approach to travel west to a primary residence. Intermodal transit hubs like Calverton, Gabreski and
East Hampton Airport would be ideal parking locations, but other key rail stations like Greenport,
Bridgehampton and Montauk would also be candidates for parking lot expansion. Registered second
homeowners would be "guaranteed" a space to insure their use of the service.
Small-scale passenger ferry boats and/or water taxis would be acquired to provide seasonal waterborne
services. Ferry stops would include the appropriate villages, hamlets, marinas and parks in our region.
These ferry stops would be within walking distance of rail and bus stops where possible on the network,
for intermodal transfer convenience.
fl
'I
Ii
Ii
I
[,
Some of these passenger ferries and/or water taxis would also take people directly to/from the Orient
Point ferry slipn-and North Fork, Shelter Island and South Fork destinations.
EETran would contract with the recently formed New York & Atlantic Railway to provide weekly to
daily freight rail service using their system...and also work with local region businesses to encourage use.
The rehabilitation of some rail siding would be critical to off-load arriving freight goods and pick up
materials for shipment west. Also, there might be a secondary opportunity to move freight by water,
which should be investigated.
EETran rail cars, buses and ferries would be "green-designed" to conserve energy and minimize or
eliminate any negative environmental impact. All vehicles would have similar aesthetics and graphics
to cleatly identify the entire rural transit network.
i
c,
Passengers would purchase daily, weekly or monthly electronic passes to ride the entire network...
or daily electronic tickets to make a specific trip from one point to another with seamless transfers
between modes of travel (rail, bus, ferry). Ticket fees would be subsidized by government public
transportation grants to encourage usage, at least
in the initial years of operation. Of course, it
would be necessary to heavily promote East End
Transit to develop ridership in the early years,
through all local and regional media outlets.. .
print, radio, television...and the Internet. A
brochure with map would also clearly identify
EETran routes and schedules.
J
j
Ticket fees would be subsidized by
government public transportation
grants to encourage usage, at least
in the initial years of operation.
No large scale construction projects would be
required to establish East End Transit, other than the rehabilitation of some rail siding, the installation
of an improved rail signal system, the expansion of some RR station parking lots for 'park& ride'
programs and the establishment of some new bus stops and ferry slips. For this reason, it is conceivable
EETran could be operational within two to three years of approval. In contrast, the proposed expansion
of CR39 in the Town of Southampton (just a 5.7 mile stretch of road) could not be completed for six
years from approval, according to the Suffolk County DP.
31
Further, the cost of acquiring new equipment and developing/operating East End Rural Transit could be
largely borne by Federal and State Public Transportation Grants and Subsidized Passenger Fees. No new
Town or personal taxes would be required for this purpose, in our opinion.
It would be beneficial for effective operation that the entire EERY rail, bus and ferry network be owned
and/or operated by the same entity, either a public agency or perhaps even a private corporation. The
formation of an East End Transportation Authority by the five East End Towns and the incorporated
Villages would be a logical first step to provide oversight for developing and operating this regional
rural public transportation network. An alternative approach would be to create a consortium of East
End transportation companies (LIRE, Suffolk County Transit, Sunrise Bus, Hampton Jitney, Cross
Sound Ferry, North Ferry and South Ferry) that provides a comprehensive transportation network to
make much automobile transportation unnecessary.
The timing may be perfect right now for this type of discussion to take place. The East End
Transportation Council, made up of representatives from all East End Towns and Villages, as well as
County, State and Federal transportation agencies, has a major project underway to deal with both land
use (development) and transportation (traffic) issues on the East End. The project is known as SEEDS,
which stands for Sustainable East End Development Strategies, and it is expected to be completed in
2005. Interested residents from all over the East End are participating in this project as 'stakeholders',
and the process is still open to the general public for participation.
The EETran concept is one approach. We offer it to stimulate more thinking and discussion about
how we can develop new public transportation services to solve our long-standing and worsening
traffic problems.
5
Scott Carlin and David Sprintzen
Institute for Sustainable Development
While local traffic congestion won't be solved anytime
soon, for a modest cost we should develop a .
comprehensive online data retrieval system focused on the
transportation needs of the five eastern towns of Suffolk
County: East Hampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island,
Southampton, and Southold. This Peconic Transit Server
will emphasize connectivity among buses, trains, ferries, bicycles, airplanes, and various car services
(e.g. parking, taxis, limo services). Expanding information services to local residents is the most cost
effective and most expedient regional alternative for enhancing regional mobility.
we should. develop a
comprehensive online data
retrieval system
Information is critical to transportation. Stoplights, maps, and departure schedules are just a few of the
information services essential to the transportation sector. To date, the Internet remains an
underutilized resource in this sector, particularly as it relates to inter-modal transit. Large transit
providers, like Amtrak and commercial airlines, have developed integrated web sites for their
customers. There are few examples, however, of inter-modal regional transportarion Internet servers,
particularly ones that promote long-term sustainable regional development.
5
Originally drafted tn May 2003, this paper was not presented at the March 2004 Conference.
ld be
) new
,vned
'he
cd
I
ast
to
s
land
oDS,
in
,
tS,
a
the
.
The region has an immediate need for this techn610gy. While congestion is a major problem for eastern
Long Island, tegional support for preserving local, natural and cultural resources has made it very
difficult for government agencies to successfully expand the area's transportation infrastructures. Local
residents have blocked bicycle lanes, ferries, and road expansions in recent years. Despite very serious
road congestion problems, the public has not supported demand management strategies, such as road
pricing and HOY lanes.
This project will provide transportation planners with a new technology for identifying service gaps in
the existing transportation system and can become a valuable information tool for improving
transportation planning and making decisions on future improvements in transportation services.
An internet site could provide information on bicycle routes (maps); public bus schedules; private
jitney services; LIRE services; regional and local ferry services; information on other transportation
providers (car rental services, taxis, etc.); regularly updated highway congestion, like INFORM; and
scheduled construction projects.
The internet service would integrate this information, so users can understand what alternative transit
services are available to connect them from their point of departure to their destination. The service
will emphasize connectivity to and from regional and local centers (governmental, commercial, and
transportation). The system will allow users to view transit information in text, tabular, and geographic
formats. For example, directions and inter. modal connections can be displayed as a map or text. Transit
schedules will be viewed in easy.to.read tables.
Over time, this web site could also develop an online library of contemporary regional transportation
planning documents. In addition to planning documents, the system could provide information on
transportation assessments by transit users and transportation professionals. Since 1987, the Long Island
Rail Road Commuters Council has surveyed riders and developed a "report card" assessing the LIRR's
effectiveness. This methodology, however, has not been replicated for other components of the regional
transportation system.
As usage of the system builds, the system will have the capability to allow registered users to participate
in online forums to ask questions related to transportation planning and transportation services.
33
Section 7:
RECOMMENDATIONS
r
,
The Institute for Sustainable Development offers the following recommendations based upon the
conference presentations and our ongoing analysis of regional transportation needs:
* The most important improvement the region can
make is to expand usage of the Long Island Railroad
corridors, which are poorly utilized (see page 45). The
existing LIRE cars are designed for travel to and from
Manhattan. The corridor could function more
efficiently as a regional light rail or trolley service with
more frequent stops. The SEEDS process should
examine whar level of land use density would allow
transit services, like light rail, to function efficiently.
* Assemblyman Fred Thiele has proposed the creation
of a regional transit authority; this may be the most
effective way forward for improving usage of the LIRE
corridor and merits further study.
* Land use policies on the East End continue to encourage large lot sprawl. These policies are
harmful and must be reversed in favor of "smart growth" design principles that favor transit-
oriented development, with higher density in hamlets and villages while preserving farm land
and "open space."
The most important
improvement the region
can make is to expand
usage of the Long Island
Railroad corridors, which
are poorly utilized
* The S92 bus service is inadequate and poorly coordinated with ferry and rail service. Suffolk
County should be commended for expanding its S92 service, but further investments are needed.
(Buses now begin at 5:45 am in Greenport and the last bus leaves East Hampton at 6:10 pm.
Service is provided on an hourly basis most of the day, with more frequent bus runs during
commuting hours.) During the summer months, local bus services should run more frequently
and schedules should be better publicized. (Citizens' groups need to do a better job of
coordinating their lobbying efforts towards these goals. Transit agencies and local elected
officials must also work together to address these service gaps.
* Transit agencies should consider expanding the usage of shuttle buses throughout the region.
This could be a mix of private, public, and public-private initiatives. In coming months the
SEEDS study will provide some empirical data on the effects of expanding shuttle services.
Their analysis merits close attention.
* We propose that a regional Internet transit
website, the Peconic Transit Server, be
established. It would provide information on:
highway congestion and optimal travel times;
construction schedules; and scheduling
information on bus, rail, and ferry services.
Transit agencies should consider
expanding the usage of shuttle
buses throughout the region.
* In recent years bike lanes have become more
prominent on local roads. These should
continue to be expanded into a regionally coherent network. Suffolk County should establish
maps and other resources to promote usage of this system.
34
i
:h
,d.
=
'r
'"
I
* Opposition to ferry services seems to preclude their expansion on the South Fork at rhis time.
The most optimal ferry service would be passenger service to and from Riverhead and Greenport
to Sag Harbor. Ferry service from Connecticut to Riverhead or west of Riverhead would
alleviate some summer congestion on the North Fork. This option merirs further attention and
should allow for bus and/or rail interconnects.
* Better management of the existing road networks:
. Stagger workplace hours
. Designate selected current secondary roadways as HaY/bus lanes - but without the addition
of any significant road-widening
. Promote carpool services
. Toll roads, where funds can subsidize bus, van, and trolley services.
To date the SEEDS process has treated the East End as an integrated region. Yet, the East End is the
largest geographic region to work with NYMTC using the SEEDS process. The East End's various
communities pose many unique and challenging problems to transportation planners. Crafting effective
and consensus-based solutions will require balancing local and regional perspectives and balancing the
need for patience (consensus is slow process) with the need for expediency (we can't wait for the
perfect solution and budget realities cannot be neglected). Ultimately the real challenge will be
ensuring that the complexities of SEEDS do not overshadow the powerful opportunity it offers _
developing an empirically informed, consensually derived roadmap for the region's sustainable future.
35
Section 8
APPENDICES
A. Related Internet Links
AKRF
http://www.akrf.com/
Bike Plan Transportation
www.bikeplan.com
Center for Excellence for Sustainable
Development, Dept of Energy
www.sustainable.doe.gov
Long Island Association
http://www.longislandassociation.org/
Long Island Progressive Coalition
http://www.lipc.org/
Long Island Sound Waterborne
Transportation Plan
http://www.nymtc.or
g/waterbome_plan/index.htm
Long Island Sound Ferry Coalition
http://www.nymtc.org/ferry_site/
Long Island Rail Road
www.mta.nyc.ny.us/LlRE/index.html
Long Island Transportation Plan 2000
www.litp2000.com
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
http://www.nymtc.org
NYMTC Regional Transportation Plan
http://www.nymte.org/plan.html
New York State Department of
Transportation
www.dot.state.ny.us
Parsons Brinekerhoff
http://www.pbworld.eom/
Peeonic Community Council
http://www.pecounci\.org/
Route 303 Corridor Sustainable
Development Study
www.eo.rockland.ny.us/planning/landuse/3 03Sur
vey.htm
Suffolk County Planning Dept
http://www.eo.suffolk.ny.us/planning/
SEEDS:
Sustainable East End Development Strategies
http://www.seedsprojeet.eom/
Sustainable Long Island
www.sustainableli.org
Town of East Hampton
http://www.town.east.hampton.ny.us/
Town of Riverhead
http://www.riverheadILeom/
Town of Shelter Island
http://www.shelterislandtown.us/
Town of Southampton
http://www.town.sourhampton.ny.us/
Town of Southold
http://southoldtown.norrhfork.net/
'Transportation Alternatives, New York City
www.transalt.com
Tri.state Transportation Campaign
www.tstc.org
Walkable Communities
www.walkable.org
36
/303Sur i
r,
I
\
.tegies
City
-----.--
.
B. Acronyms
ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act
CR - County Road
DOT - Department of Transportation
EETC - East End Transportation Council
ITE - Institute of Transportation Engineers
LIE - Long Island Expressway
LIRR - Long Island Rail Road
LITP - Long Island Transportation Plan
MTA - Metropolitan Transit Authority
NYMTC - New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
SCAT - Suffolk County Accessible Transportation
SCT - Suffolk County Transit
SEEDS - Sustainable East End Development Strategies
TAZ - Transportation Analysis Zone
...
37
C. Data Tables
Table 1: Town Population Characteristics
Town of East Hampton Population
Population & Density 1990 2000 Change Percent Change
Total population 16,132 19,719 3,587 22.2%
Undet 18 years 3,140 4,188 1,048 33.4%
65 years and over 2,892 3,271 379 13.1%
Median age 40.1 41.6 1.5 3.7%
Population density/acre1 0.34 0.42 0.08 22.2%
Total housing units 1 7,068 19,640 2,572 15.1%
Occupied housing units 6,882 8,101 1,219 17.7%
Owner-occupied 5,437 6,166 729 13.4%
Renter-occupied 1,445 1,935 490 33.9%
Vacanr units 10,186 11,539 1,353 13.3%
Seasonal use 8,886 10,693 1,807 20.3%
Households 6,882 8,101 1,219 17.7%
Average household size 2.32 2.42 0.10 4.3%
Households with under 18 1,789 2,365 576 32.2%
Householder with 65 & older 2,146 2,451 305 14.2%
Notes: 1. Based on town..wide upland acreage: 46,996 acres
Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000; Suffolk County Dept. of Planning, July 2000.
Edited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies
Town of Riverhead Population
Population & Density 1990 2000 Change Percent Change
Total population 23,011 27,680 4,669 20.3%
Under 18 years 5,2246 372 1,148 22.0%
65 years and over 4,728 5,107 379 8.0%
Median age 38.7 40.6 1.9 4.9%
Population density/acre1 0.53 0.64 0.11 20.3%
Total housing units 10,801 12,4 79 1,678 15.5%
Occupied housing units 8,736 10,749 2,013 23.0%
Owner-occupied 6,824 8,288 1,464 21.5%
Renter-occupied 1,912 2,461 549 28.7%
Vacant units 2,065 1,730 -335 -16.2%
Seasonal use 1,334 1,165 -169 -12.7%
Households 8,736 10,/49 2,013 23.0%
Average household size 2.55 2.50 -0.05 -2.0%
Households with under 18 2,778 3,293 515 18.5%
Households with 65 & older 3,217 3,556 339 10.5%
Notes: 1. Based on rown~wide upland acreage: 43,297acres
Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000; Suffolk County Dept. of Planning, July 2000.
Edited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies
38
..
Town of Shelter Island Population
Population & Density
Total population
Under 18 years
65 years and over
Median age
Population density/acre I
Total housing units
Occupied housing units
Owner-occupied
Renter-occupied
Vacant units
Seasonal use
Households
Average household size
Households with under 18
Households with 65 & older
1990
2,263
374
658
48.7
0.312
2,148
1,017
862
155
1,131
1,018
1,120
2.23
209
471
2000
2,228
404
638
49.2
0.307
2,370
996
836
160
1,374
1,307
996
2.24
207
457
Change
-35
30
-20
0.5
-0.005
222
-21
-26
5
243
289
-124
0.01
-2
-14
Percent Change
-1.5%
8.0%
-3.0%
1.0%
-1.5%
10.3%
-2.1%
-3.0%
3.2%
21.5%
28.4%
-11.1%
0.4%
-1.0%
-3.0%
Notes: 1. Based on town-wide upland acreage: 7,247acres
Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000; Suffolk County Dept. of Planning, July 2000.
Edited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies
I
!
!
,
I
I
r
,
I
r
,
!
Town of Southampton Population
Population & Density 1990 2000 Change Percent Change
Total population 45,351 55,216 9,865 21.8%
Under 18 years 9,002 11,722 2,720 30.2%
65 years and over 8,666 9,153 487 5.6%
Median age 39.0 40.4 1.4 3.6%
Population density/acrel 0.51 0.62 0.11 21.6%
Total housing units2 33,795 38,280 4,485 13.3%
Occupied housing units* 18,029 21,504 3,475 19.3%
Owner-occupied* 13,672 16,348 2,676 19.6%
Renter-occupied* 4,357 5,156 799 18.3%
Vacant units* 15,593 14,332 -1,261 -8.1 %
Seasonal use* * 12,971 15,202 2,231 17.2%
Households* 18,029 21,504 3,475 19.3%
Average household size 2.41 2.45 0.04 U%
Households with under 18* 4,874 6,337 1,463 30.0%
Householder with 65 & older* 6,339 6,585 246 3.9%
Notes: 1. Based on town-wide upland acreage: 88,963 acres
2. 2000 figure adjusted upward by 2,250 by H. Ross for estimated undercount by Census;
For more detail, see Note 1 in Table 2-1.
*Unadjusted.
** For 1990: Long Island Regional Planning Board, "Estimated Peak Seasonal Population ~ 1990"; for 2000: Suffolk County
Planning Department, "Estimated Peak Seasonal Population, 2000, Suffolk County, New York," adjusted upward to take
account of the 2,250 undercount in total housing units, and assuming, conservatively, that 50% of the new houses built
between 1990 and 2000 were seasonaL (During the 1980s, 53% were seasonal.)
Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000; Suffolk County Dept. of Planning, July 2000.
Edited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies
39
Town of Southold Population
Population & Density
Total population
Under 18 years
65 years and over
Median age
Population density/acre1
Total housing units
Occupied housing units
Owner-occupied
Renter-occupied
Vacant units
Seasonal use
Households
Average household size
Households with under 18
Householder with 65 & older
1990
19,836
4,014
4,860
43.1
0.57
12,979
8,125
4,854
1,704
4,854
4,152
8,125
2.41
2,153
3,376
2000
20,599
4421
4,756
44.7
0.59
13,769
8461
6824
1637
5,308
4,689
8461
2.40
2,373
3,283
Change
763
407
-104
1.6
0.02
790
336
1970
-67
454
537
336
-0.01
220
-93
Notes: 1. Based on town~wide upland acreage: 34,767acres
Sources: US Censu.;, 1990 and 2000; Suffolk County Dept. of Planning, July 2000.
Edited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies
40
1
Percent Change
3.8%
10.1%
-2.1%
3.7%
3.8%
6.1%
4.1%
40.6%
-3.9%
9.4%
12.9%
4.1%
-0.4%
10.2%
-2.8%
,
Table 2: Housing and Population Summary Table
Town
EastHampbn
Riverhe ad
Sheler BIa nd
Southam ptan
Southold
East End Total
Total and Seasonal Housing Un~s
Total 2000 Projected Un~s
1990 2000 Seasonal Units at Saturation
17,068 19,640 10,693 27,270
10,801 12,478 1,165 26,240
2,148 2,370 1,307 4,166
33,795 38,280 15,202 52,285
12,979 13,769 4,689 21,831
76,791 86,538 33,056 131,792
Year-Round Population
Town 1990 2000 At Saturation
EastHampbn 16,132 19,719 27,099
Riverhe ad 23,011 27,680 60,361
Sheler lsla nd 2,263 2,228 2,511
Southam pton 45,351 55,216 73,743
Southold 19,836 20,599 30,852
East End Total 106,593 124,442 194,566
Summer Population
Town 1990 2000 At Saturation
East Ha mpbn 53,386 71,906 97,383
Riverhe ad 12,825 12,784 28,051
Sheler Isla nd 5,519 6,889 13,167
Southam pton 84,932 100,887 141,108
Southold 25,503 28,005 47,202
East End Total 182,164 220,472 319,711
Source: Suslainable East End Development Stragies Inventory and Analysis Report, (Revised
2004) httpJIw'MV.seedsprojectcom.
41
Table 3: Land Use Acreage by Town for
Eastern Suffolk County, 1999
Rwerhood Souhold Sheler Isla1d Soulhanpton EffitHarrpton Totals
Lowdensio/ resdential 2,094 5% 5,566 16% 1,810 25% 15,194 17% 7,953 17% 32,617 15%
Ma::Iium density residenticl 3,187 7% 4,300 12% 837 12% 10,935 12% 5,768 12% 25,Cl27 11%
H igt densty resid:mtial 761 2% 236 1% 14 0% 580 1% 405 1% 1,006 1%
Conmerdal 999 2% 654 2% 146 2% 2,182 3% 619 1% 4,600 2%
IndJstrial 3,661 9% 149 0% 12 0% 789 1% 266 1% 4,m 2%
Inst:lutiona 618 1% 1,242 4% 123 2% 2,244 3% 294 1% 4,521 2%
Ra::reatbn& open space 8,510 20% 4,105 12% 2,617 36% ~,041 27% 14,872 32% 54,145 24%
Agi::ulure 16,860 39% 9,758 28% 156 2% 7,940 9% 1,495 3% 36,aJ9 16%
VaC2nt 4,139 10% 6,008 17% 1,371 19% 15,023 17% 10,899 23% 37,440 17%
Trmsportctbn 2,225 5% 2,423 7% 131 2% 9,318 11% 4,075 9% 18,172 8%
Utlies 157 0% 241 1% 3 0% 493 1% 243 1% 1,137 1%
... W cstehardling 86 0% 85 0% 27 0% 224 0% 107 0% 529 0%
.,
TorAl 43,297 100% 34,767 100% 7,247 100% 83,963 100% 46,996 100'/. 221,270 100%
Ndes: Low dEnsity residertial: $1 uniVocre; lV1edium density residential: > 1 to <5units/ocre; High dEnsity residEntial: 25 units/acre
Edited and Compiled: by Sustainable East End Development Strategies
.
~
Table 4: LIRR Transit Data
LlRR Station Ridership & Parking-Weekday
Station AM Peak AM Peak Parking
Period Period Capacity
"Ons" llOffs"
Riverhead
Mattituck
Southold
Greenport
Westhampton
Quogue
Hampton Bays
Southampton
Bridgehampton
East Hampton
Amagansett
Montauk
Parking
Demand
16
2
o
8
II
3
10
14
9
25
4
11
7
8
9
3
8
o
15
7
10
16
3
5
22
71
20
99
38
N/A
190
74
85
373
35
60
17
32
I
49
8
N/A
30
44
50
103
20
3
Notes: AM peak period ridership extends from 6 to 10 AM
Sources: MTA Long Island Rail Road; East Side Access, PDEIS, December 1999.
Edited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies
LlRR Summer Weekend Ridership (South Fork)
Station Friday (2-10PM) Saturday (lOAM-7PM)
Passengers On/Off Passengers On/Off
54/757 59/123
45/209 47/122
62/362 64/180
34/447 0/122
0/902 0/124
34/114 0/42
0/266 0/81
Westhampton
Hampton Bays
Southampton
Bridgehampton
East Hampton
Amagansett
Montauk
Percent
Occupancy
77%
45%
5%
50%
21%
N/A
16%
60%
59%
28%
57%
5%
Sunday (l-9PM)
Passengers On/Off
356/7
163/14
368/24
273/3
577/0
115/0
249/0
Notes: Counts taken on August 13-15, 1999
Source: LlRR East End Transportation Study
Edited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies, Inventory and Analysis Report, 2004.
http://www.seedsproject.com .
43
Recent Train Schedules to Selected Stations
To Long Island To New York City
Monday to Fridays Except Monday to Fridays Except
Holidays* Holidays*
Leave Arrive Leave Arrive
Penn East East Penn
Station Hampton Hampton Station
12:35 am 3: 31 am 1 :22 am 4:12 am
7:49-am 10:28 am 6:03 am 8:42am
11 :01 am 1:55 pm 11 :47 am 2:40 pm
FRI 3:15 "" 6:20pm
4:01 pm ONLY 6: 17 pm 11:02 "" 2:09 am
4:21 pm 7: 10 pm
5:51 pm 8:37 pm
8:30 pm 11:32 pm
. Winter 2005 schedule; schedules vary by season-
To Long Island
Monday to Fridays Except
Holidays*
Leave Arrive
Penn Riverhead
Station
7:39 am 9:47 am
12:15pm 2: 27 pm
5:41 pm 7:37 pm
5:53 pm 8:00 pm
To New York City
Monday to Fridays Except
Holidavs*
Leave Arrive
Riverhead Penn
Station
6:08 am 8:20 am
12:21 "" 2:33 pm
3:16 "" 5:37 pm
10:34 "" 12:46 am
. Winter 2005 schedule: schedules vary by season.
Source: http://mt a .inf olli rrl htmlIttnlIi rrtt . htm
44
,
Table 5: 2000 US Census
Travel Mode to Work
East Hampton
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9,240 100.0%
Car. truck, or van - drove alone .............................70.5
Car, truck, or van - carpooled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .12.9
Public transportation (including taxicab) ....................... .2.7
Walked. . .., . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . ., .3.1
Other means. ............................................. .2,4
Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8,4
Mean travel time to work (minutes) .......................... .21.2
Riverhead
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .12,229 100.0%
Car, truck, or van - drove alone ............................ .80.9
Car, truck, or van - carpooled. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .9.7
Public transportation (including taxicab) ....................... .2.6
Walked .................................................. .2,4
Other means .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0
Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3
Mean travel time to work (minutes) .......................... .27,4
Shelter Island
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over. ... . . . .... . . .. . .1,011 100.0%
Car, truck, or van - drove alone ............................ .69.1
Car, truck, or van - carpooled. . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . ... . .. . .12.3
Public transportation (including taxicab) ....................... .1,4
Walked .................................................. ,4.2
Other means .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0,4
Worked at home. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .12.7
Mean travel time to work (minutes) .......................... .19.7
Southampton
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over .................. .25,363 100.0%
Car, truck, or van ~ drove alone ............................ .75.2
Car, truck, or van - carpooled ...............................1 0.5
Public transportation (including taxicab) ........................3.7
Walked .................................................. .3.8
Other means.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . .., . . . ., . .1.1
Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
............................... .
Mean travel time to work (minutes) .......................... .26.2
45
~,.4"".",,_
-,
Southold
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8,917 100.0%
Car, rruck, or van - drove alone .............................78.5
Car, truck, or van - carpooled ............................... .8.4
Public transportation (including taxicab) ........................3.2
Walked .................................................. .3.6
Other means .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.4
Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.9
Mean travel time to work (minutes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26.8
Source: U.S. Census, http://www.census.gov
46
D. The Institute for Sustainable Development
The goals of Institute ate to ptomote teseatch, education and systemic change in the atea of sustainable
development in ordet to make Long Island a more sustainable tegion. This confetence complements the
Institute's work on land use, transportation, and energy - some of the cote issues that the Institute has
worked on in recent years.
Through this conference and this publication the Institute hopes to encourage an open and honest
engagement about the future of transpottation here on the East End. The transportation problems that
we face go well beyond issues of morning congestion. The East End economy is dependent on second
homes. As such, mobility and environmental quality are critical patts of our economy. Ensuring the
sustainability of the East End also requires improving social equity elements, like public access, of our
transportation infrastructure.
This report was compiled and edited by Dr. Scott Carlin, Christina Hamm, Lisa Brown, and Dr. David
Sprintzen. With this report, the Institute concludes its eight-year affiliation with Long Island University.
In 2005, the Institute will teview several reorganization strategies.
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank AKRF, Inc. (www.akrf.com) for their generous financial
suppott for our March 12, 2003 conference. We also thank EW Howell Co. for advettising support and
Allison Pye fot photography services. All photographs in this report were taken by Allison Pye, with
the following exceptions. John Corbett photographed the train on p. 33; The fetty on p. 35 is reprinted
with permission from http://www.greenport.cc; and the charts on pages 11 and 13 are from
http://www.seedsproject.com .
Scott Carlin
(front aisle) David Sprintzen
47
EEDS..
Land Use - Transportation
cenario Matrix
Maintain Current LaM U~e
LandA/se 1 ,
Current
Buildout ,
(Do Nothing)
Transportation
anagement
initegies
2
Reduce
Buildout
by 50%
,
I
Create "Preservation" and ': Development" Areas
3
Maximize
Hamlet Center
Densities
4
Maintain Current
Hamlet Center
Densities .
5
Maximize Buildout
Reduction (Over
60%)