DOCSLIB.ORG

05/10/2019 Review of the Proposed Capital Program 2020-2022 Capital Budget 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
05/10/2019 Review of the Proposed Capital Program 2020-2022 Capital Budget 2020 SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE Robert Lipp BUDGET REVIEW OFFICE Director May 10, 2019 DuWayne Gregory, Presiding Officer and Members of the Suffolk County Legislature Dear Legislators: Accompanying this letter is the Budget Review Office Review of the Proposed 2020-2022 Capital Program and 2020 Capital Budget. On a personal note, I would like to thank the entire staff of the Budget Review Office for their hard work and long hours in preparation of this report. I am confident you will find the quality of this report up to Budget Review Office standards. The credit for our work effort goes to each and every member of the Budget Review Office. My staff and I remain ready to provide whatever assistance the Legislature may require during the capital program and budget evaluation and amending process. Sincerely, Robert Lipp, Director Mailing Address: P. O. Box 6100, Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 (631) 853-4100 FAX: (631) 853-5496 e-mail: [email protected] SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE DuWayne Gregory, Presiding Officer Robert Calarco, Deputy Presiding Officer District 1 Al Krupski 2 Bridget Fleming 3 Rudy A. Sunderman 4 Thomas Muratore 5 Kara Hahn 6 Sarah S. Anker 7 Robert Calarco 8 William J. Lindsay, III 9 Samuel Gonzalez 10 Thomas Cilmi 11 Steven J. Flotteron 12 Leslie Kennedy 13 Robert Trotta 14 Kevin J. McCaffrey 15 DuWayne Gregory 16 Susan A. Berland 17 Tom Donnelly 18 William Spencer Clerk of the Legislature Jason Richberg Counsel to the Legislature Sarah Simpson SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE The Budget Review Office Robert Lipp, Ph.D. Director Rosalind Gazes Deputy Director Benny Pernice Chief Legislative Analyst Joseph Schroeder Energy Specialist Cary Flack Systems Analyst Supervisor Robert Doering Senior Legislative Analyst Craig Freas Senior Legislative Analyst Tyara Briefs Legislative Analyst Laura Halloran Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Stroehlein Legislative Analyst Laura Tepedino Web and Social Media Administrator Anthony Oliveto Office Systems Analyst III Joseph Muncey Assistant Legislative Analyst Thomas Corcoran Research Technician Janice Lawlor Office Systems Technician William O’Brien Legislative Technician David Petrie Office Systems Technician Andrew Tarantowicz Legislative Technician Sharen Wagner Principal Office Assistant TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Analysis of the Proposed Capital Program 1 Suffolk County Land Acquisition Programs and Policies 7 Capital Projects Included in the Proposed Capital Program and Budget As Previously Adopted and Requested by Departments 14 Debt Service Impact 19 Index of Capital Projects 20 Individual Capital Project Reviews 29 2020-2022 Proposed Capital Program Schedule 410 Appendix 426 Analysis of the Proposed Capital Program Analysis of the Proposed Capital Program Overview The primary focus of this section of the report is to project the extent to which operating budget debt service costs, associated with the capital program, are likely to increase or decrease over the next several years. A projected increase would make it more challenging to avoid a deficit, while a projected decrease would provide some budget relief. Our emphasis will be on capital projects that are financed with non-sewer serial bonds, referred to as B-money in the capital program. The vast majority of these bonds are obligations of the General Fund. For a better understanding of the assumptions used in our projections, refer to the write-up in this report titled “Debt Service Impact.” In what follows, we discuss our findings as they relate to serial bond debt, and conclude with several summary measures of mostly non-sewer serial bond financing of the capital program. Findings: The cost of serial bond debt service (excluding sewers) is forecast to increase in four of the five years of our forecast period (2019 through 2023). Debt service costs are projected to exceed the 2019 adopted amount by $1.5 million this year (2019), by $3.3 million in 2020, $2.1 million in 2021 (decreasing from $3.3 million more than 2019 to $2.1 million more), $9.3 million more in 2022, and an additional $18.96 million in 2023. Notice that the cost increases (with one exception) get larger each year. This is an important observation. If there is no policy designed to control debt service costs, then the County’s debt service expense will likely continue to exceed 2019 levels in the future. Among other things, our projections assume that the County borrows $100 million each year. In order to maintain 2019 adopted debt service levels, future serial bond issues would have to be restricted to approximately $70 million per year. Due to the County’s many capital needs, a cut of $30 million per year would be very challenging for the County to enact. As an example of an alternative policy that the Legislature could consider would be to set bond authorizations (for B- money) at $100 million per year with a procedure to pierce that targeted amount. There are other factors besides current and future capital needs that make it difficult to reduce debt service costs. In particular: (1) Pipeline debt: This represents authorized unissued borrowing. Currently, non-sewer pipeline debt is $265.8 million. Over the past year it increased by $6.9 million, making it slightly more difficult to limit borrowing. (2) Pay-as-you-go: The County has a pay-as-you-go policy, where recurring projects would be funded with cash in the operating budget. However, County finances have made it difficult to pay upfront. If anything, the County has moved away from such a policy. For instance, cars and other vehicles as well as computers used to be purchased with cash, but are now funded with the proceeds of debt. Another example is legal settlements. The trend has been from paying cash to borrowing for settlements. (3) Debt service on previously issued serial bonds: Current principal and interest payments could include debt service costs on capital projects that go as far back as 20 years ago. As such, any change in debt policy is not likely to see significant results until much of the existing debt service works its way out of the system. 1 Analysis of the Proposed Capital Program (4) Credit Rating: The County’s credit rating has been downgraded a number of times this decade. In 2010, the County’s overall credit rating was either “AA” or “AA-“ in the opinion of the three major credit rating agencies (on a scale where “AAA” is the best rating possible). Currently, Fitch and S&P have given the County an “A-” rating, while Moody’s has given the County a Baa1 rating (the equivalent of BBB+ for the other agencies). Lower credit ratings result in higher interest rates, which in turn result in higher debt service costs. Putting things in perspective, the County’s capital program is not the main source of our financial difficulties. The impact that debt has on the operating budget is limited in the sense that total serial bond debt service only represents about six percent of total County expenditures (excluding interfund transfers). With that said, the Legislature may still wish to consider policy options that control or reduce debt service costs. Any mention of debt policy would be incomplete without reference to Resolution No. 208-2019, adopting the official debt policy of Suffolk County. One of the provisions of that policy is that County debt service “should not exceed 8% of the total County operating budget.” Even with the future increases on the horizon, the County is not in any danger of exceeding that eight percent threshold. For reference, other municipalities have adopted debt policies with serial bond debt thresholds equaling 10% of their total operating budget. It remains to be seen how effective that legislation will be. We conclude this section of our report with several summary measures of mostly non-sewer serial bond financing of the capital program and its debt service impact on the operating budget. Authorized and Proposed Levels of Serial Bond Borrowing (Table 1) • 2019 pipeline debt represents authorizations for the County Comptroller to issue serial bonds for capital projects approved by the Legislature. These bond authorizations are for projects that, for the most part, are already underway or are expected to be undertaken within the required five-year time limit set by Local Law 15-2002. As of March 1, 2019, excluding sewers, there is $265.8 million in pipeline debt. This represents an increase of $6.9 million (2.7%) from last year. • The 2019 Adopted/Modified Capital Budget includes $102.3 million in serial bonds for non-sewer projects that are contained in the County Executive’s modified version of the Adopted 2019 Capital Budget. This represents an increase of approximately $6.4 million from last year. • The Proposed 2020-2022 Capital Program calls for borrowing $481.6 million for all funds: $129.8 million in 2020, $195 million in 2021 and $156.9 million in 2022. These amounts represent recommended additions to 2019 adopted capital authorizations. 2 Analysis of the Proposed Capital Program TABLE 1 Authorized and Proposed Levels of Serial Bond Borrowing 2019 Pipeline Debt, 2019 Adopted/Modified, and 2020-2022 Proposed Capital Program 2019 Pipeline Debt 2019 (Authorized Unissued Adopted/Modified 2020 2021 2022 1 as of 03/01/19) Capital Budget Proposed Proposed Proposed General Fund Serial Bonds (includes other Funds that are 2 General Fund obligations) $260,250,682 $94,732,000 $95,806,000 $134,123,000 $119,901,000 Police District Serial Bonds (includes other Funds that are Police 3 District obligations) $5,522,000 $7,549,000 $8,685,000 $19,376,000 $7,400,000 Serial Bond Subtotal (all B-money) $265,772,682 $102,281,000 $104,491,000 $153,499,000 $127,301,000 Sewer Districts Serial Bonds 4 (all X-money) $297,559,596 $4,750,000 $25,300,000 $41,500,000 $29,550,000 Total $563,332,278 $107,031,000 $129,791,000 $194,999,000 $156,851,000 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Directions to Schiff Scout Reservation, Wading River, NY
    TROOP 409 DIRECTIONS Directions to St Matthew RC Church, Dix Hills, NY 35 North Service Road, Dix Hills, NY 11746 x St Mathew is off the LIE North Service Road. x From LIE x51, take the South Service Road East until you hit Carl's Straight Path. \ x Make a Left on Carl's Straight Path, cross over the LIE and make another left on to LIE North Service Road. x St Matthew will be on the Right Side. x We typically meet in one of the rooms on the 2nd floor. x Some activities are held in Monsignor Goggin Hall, in the Basement Directions to Paumanok Elementary School, Dix Hills, NY 1 Seaman Neck Road, Dix Hills, NY 11746 x Paumanok Elementary School is on Straight Path Road / Seaman Neck Road x Take LIE x51 South. x Travel South on Deer Park Avenue until the Fork in the Road. Stay to your Right on to Straight Path Road. x Paumanok will be on the Right Side. x We typically meet in the cafeteria. Directions to Orient Point Ferry x Take LIE to Exit 71. x At the bottom of the ramp, turn left (north) onto Edwards Ave. x Continue north for about 5.5 miles until you come to Sound Ave. x Turn right (east) and continue for about 30 miles on Sound Ave o (when you reach Mattituck, Sound Ave becomes Route 25). x The Orient Point Ferry is located at the end of Route 25, at the end of the North Fork of LI. x Allow at least 1.5 hours driving time.
    [Show full text]
  • 5. Appendix D
    Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Suffolk County, Long Island, New York February 2009 US Army Corps of Engineers Suffolk County, NY New York District APPENDIX D APPENDIX D Duck Farm Industry and Impacts Report prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building - 4th Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 DeWitt S. Davies, Ph.D. Chief Environmental Analyst Duck Farm Industry Impacts on the Environment Introduction As documented in the historical overview section, the duck farm industry in Suffolk County was an extremely intensive land use along stream and bay shorelines. Inventory work by the Department of Planning indicates that approximately 2,000 acres of upland property and almost 20 miles of shoreline along freshwater creeks/rivers and estuary tributaries – primarily in the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead and Southampton – were utilized during the last century in Suffolk County for duck production. The impacts of duck farming were dramatic, both on-site and off-site. Extensive landform alterations were made to construct animal pens, feed lots and swim ponds, which were often located in or directly adjacent to streams/coves of the bays. Waste effluent discharges from the farms created thick organic matter deposits, degraded water quality and altered phytoplankton and benthic population in near-by surface waters. Duck Farms – An Intensive Land Use The significance of the impacts is reflected by the magnitude of the industry and the waste load generated. Effluent waste loadings from the farms in the form of suspended solids, nutrients and coliform bacteria were huge, especially prior to the required use of treatment technology under water pollution control laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Island Sound Crossing Feasibility Study Final Report
    Long Island Sound Crossing Feasibility Study Final Report December 2017 Version 1.0 Submitted to: Submitted by: Long Island Sound Crossing Feasibility Study CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND BENEFITS ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 ALIGNMENT CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 STUDY FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 PROJECT HISTORY .................................................................................................................................................... 6 3 ALIGNMENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 STUDY AREA ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Forge River, Problem Identification
    The Forge River, Problem Identification A report prepared for the Town of Brookhaven Long Island, New York by R.L. Swanson, B. Brownawell, and C. O’Connell School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University September 2009 The Forge River, Problem Identification The Problem The Forge River is a small, partially mixed estuary discharging into Moriches Bay, a part of the Long Island south shore lagoonal system. The tidal portion of the river is 4 K (3.2 nautical mile) long that ends abruptly at Montauk Highway which serves as a dam. Two freshwater ponds (East Pond and West Pond) continuously discharge to the tidal Forge at this location. The surface watershed of the river is 43.06 km2 (10.641 acres). About 20 percent of the watershed is in the deep groundwater recharge zone (Zone III). During the summer months, the water in the Forge has experienced polluted1 conditions as evidenced by fish and crab kills, foul odors, rotting algal debris in the water, and sections of the river have sporadically turned milky white. These symptoms were especially severe during the summer of 2005 and the river has remained in a deteriorated state ever since. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Suffolk County, and the Town of Brookhaven have set an agenda to determine the causes of pollution and to identify potential remediation measures in the Forge River. Investigators at Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SoMAS) were initially charged with ________________________________________________ 1 Marine pollution – “the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy to the marine environment resulting in deleterious effects such as: hazards to humans, health; hindrance of marine activities, including fishing, .
    [Show full text]
  • Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Suffolk County, Long Island, New York
    Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Suffolk County, Long Island, New York February 2009 US Army Corps of Engineers Suffolk County, NY New York District Table of Contents Section Page Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ 1 List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 History of Duck Farming on Long Island................................................................................ 1 4.0 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 2 4.1 Duck Waste Statistics ....................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Off-site Impacts of Duck Farm Operation........................................................................ 3 4.2.1 Duck Sludge Deposits.................................................................................................... 4 4.3 On-site Impacts of Duck Farm Operation......................................................................... 5 5.0
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Ticket/Accident Reporting Specifications
    Appendix I – NYS DMV Requirements New York State Law Enforcement Records Management System Electronic Ticket/Accident Reporting Specifications (Sept. 2007) New York State Department of Motor Vehicles New York State Police New York State Office of Court Administration RFP22798 Page 1 of 207 Electronic Ticket/Accident Reporting Specifications Table of Contents Policy For Electronic Tickets and Accident Reports 3 New York State Police TraCs User Agreement 6 Certification Process 9 Post-Certification 10 Tickets 11 Ticket Algorithm 11 Data Input Schema 12 Sample TSLED XML File 15 TSLED Data Elements 20 Sample Adjudication XML File 81 Adjudication Data Elements 86 Accidents 149 Accident Report Case Number 149 Data Input Schema 150 Sample XML File 156 Accident Report Data Elements 161 Exceptions Handling 186 New York Driving License 2D Barcode Format 187 New York State Registration Barcode Format 195 Attachment A- Context Diagram 202 Attachment B- Agency and Vendor Contact Information 203 Attachment C- TraCS Local Lead Agencies 205 Page 2 of 207 Electronic Ticket/Accident Reporting Specifications Policy For Electronic Tickets and Accident Reports From New York State Police Agencies To New York State Police New York State Department of Motor Vehicles and New York State Office of Court Administration The New York State Police (NYSP), the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the Office of Court Administration (OCA) and other state and federal agencies, have developed a system for the electronic transmission of ticket and accident report data from law enforcement agencies to DMV and the courts. Data standards for ticket and accident report data have been agreed to between agencies for the electronic transfer of data and are available to participating agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Proposed Capital Program 1
    SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE Robert Lipp BUDGET REVIEW OFFICE Director May 10, 2013 William J. Lindsay, Presiding Officer and Members of the Suffolk County Legislature Dear Legislators: Accompanying this letter is the Budget Review Office Review of the 2014-2016 Proposed Capital Program and 2014 Capital Budget. We have maintained the same format as last year’s report. One new front end write up was added that summarizes a new funding source, FEMA aid, in the Proposed 2014-2016 Capital Program. Highlights of this report can be found in the Introduction immediately following the Table of Contents. Among other things, recommendations made in this report reflect what the Budget Review Office believes are needed changes, but exclude additional funding we would want to recommend in better times. On a personal note, this is the first Budget Review Office report following my permanent appointment as Director. I would like to thank each and every Legislator for your vote of confidence in appointing me. I promise to work hard to maintain that trust and confidence. I would also like to thank the entire staff of the Budget Review Office for their hard work and long hours in preparation of this report. I am confident you will find the quality of this report up to Budget Review Office standards. The credit for our work effort goes to each and every member of the Budget Review Office. My staff and I remain ready to provide whatever assistance the Legislature may require during the capital program and budget evaluation and amending process. Sincerely, Robert Lipp, Director Mailing Address: P.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk County Planning Commission
    SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION c/o Suffolk County Department of Economic Development & Planning 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, PO Box 6100, Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 T: (631) 853-5191 F: (631) 853-4767 Theresa Ward, Commissioner, Department of Economic Development and Planning Sarah Lansdale, Director of Planning Notice of Meeting January 4, 2017 at 10 a.m Rose Caracappa Auditorium, W.H. Rogers Legislature Bldg., 725 Veterans Memorial Highway, Smithtown, NY Tentative Agenda Includes: 1. Meeting Summary for December 2016 2. Public Portion 3. Chairman’s Report 4. Director’s Report 5. Guests • None 6. Section A 14-14 thru A 14-23 & A 14-25 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code • Pilgrim State Property - Heartland Town Square, Town of Islip 0500 07100 0100 010008 et al 7. Section A-14-24 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code • None 8. Other Business: • 2016 Rules of Proceedings • Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook • PSDR – Parking Stall Demand Reduction NOTE: The next meeting of the SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION will be held on February 1, 2017 2 p.m.. location to be determined COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Z-1 Steven Bellone SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE Department of Economic Development and Planning Theresa Ward Division of Planning Commissioner and Environment STAFF REPORT SECTIONS A14-14 THRU A14-24 OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Applicant: Pilgrim State Property - Heartland Town Square Municipality: Islip Location: South of the Long Island Expressway, southwest of Crooked Hill Road and west of Sagtikos State Parkway, and southeast of the intersection of Campus Rd and Sagtikos State Parkway, Brentwood Received: 10/31/2016 File Number: IS-16-03 T.P.I.N.: 0500 07100 0100 010002 Jurisdiction: Adjacent to NYS Rte.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Selected Growth and Development Areas Suffolk County, New York
    A Review of Selected Growth and Development Areas Suffolk County, New York August 2006 Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County # New York A Review of Selected Growth and Development Areas Suffolk County, New York August 2006 Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building - 4th Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 This publication is on the WEB at: http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/planning Steve Levy SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE Suffolk County Planning Commission John Caracciolo- Town of Huntington CHAIRMAN Linda Holmes - Town of Shelter Island VICE CHAIRMAN Charla E. Bolton, AICP - At Large SECRETARY Louis Dietz - Town of Babylon Edward James Pruitt - Town of Brookhaven vacant - Town of East Hampton Donald J. Fiore - Town of Islip Jesse R. Goodale III - Town of Riverhead vacant - Town of Smithtown vacant - Town of Southampton vacant - Town of Southold Adrienne Esposito - Village over 5,000 population Constantine Kontokosta - Village under 5,000 population vacant- At Large Sarah Lansdale - At Large Suffolk County Department of Planning Thomas A. Isles, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING PROJECT COORDINATOR Carrie Meek Gallagher DEPUTY DIRECTOR REPORT PREPARATION Peter K. Lambert RESEARCH DIVISION Carol Walsh CARTOGRAPHY DIVISION Carl Lind Kate Oheim Suffolk County Department of Planning Hauppauge, New York August 2006 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................1 Demographic and Housing Trends in Suffolk County ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of State Routes in Suffolk County Select a Route to View Most Recent Traffic Counts for That Route Click Here for More Information
    LIST OF STATE ROUTES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY SELECT A ROUTE TO VIEW MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR THAT ROUTE CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION 24 25 25A 27 27A 108 109 110 111 112 114 231 347 454 495I 900A 900C Orient State Park Entrance 900W SH 1274: Montauk Highway 901A Hauppauge Center Road 906A L.I.E. EB Service Road 906B L.I.E. WB Service Road 906C Rt 27 EB Service Road 906D Rt 27 WB Service Road 908G Northern State Parkway 908J Robert Moses Causeway 908K Sagtikos State Parkway 908M Southern State Parkway 909D Ocean Parkway (Nassau, Suffolk) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2003 Traffic Volume Report for SUFFOLK COUNTY Touring Section Start Description End Description Count Route Length Year AADT 24 0.70 NASSAU CO LINE RT 110 02 18046 24 3.80 RT 495 CR 94A 99 10027 24 0.46 CR 94A CR 104 TRAFFIC CIRCLE 98 13648 24 1.24 CR 104 TRAFFIC CIRCLE CR 105 CROSS RIVER RD 02 14669 24 1.33 CR 105 CROSS RIVER RD PLEASURE DR 99 21151 24 4.98 PLEASURE DR ACC RT 27 02 17934 24 0.24 ACC RT 27 MONTAUK HWY END 24 98 14795 25 2.35 NASSAU CO LINE WEST GATE DR RT 110 03 31793 25 1.19 RT 110 DEPOT RD / PIGEON HILL RD 03 35393 25 1.45 DEPOT RD / PIGEON HILL RD CR 35 PARK AVE 94 33530 25 1.79 CR 35 PARK AVE CR 10 ELWOOD RD 96 22763 25 1.12 CR 10 ELWOOD RD LARKFIELD RD 01 23138 25 0.90 LARKFIELD RD CR 4 COMMACK RD 02 36802 25 0.15 CR 4 COMMACK RD RT 454 VETS MEM HGWY 03 47014 25 0.48 RT 454 VETS MEM HGWY ACC SUNKEN MEADOW PKWY 94 28395 25 2.55 ACC SUNKEN MEADOW PKWY OLD WILLETS PATH 03 24238 25 1.37 OLD WILLETS PATH START 25A OLAP 02 30793 25 0.55 START
    [Show full text]
  • Sagtikos Sunken Meadow State Parkway Operational Study
    WELCOME Thank you for coming to the New York State Department of Transportation Sagtikos / Sunken Meadow State Parkway Operational Study Public Meeting. Please Sign-In and Take a Brochure. New York State Department of Transportation, Region 10 Sagtikos / Sunken Meadow State Parkway Operational Study PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1 BIENVENIDO! Un intérprete de español está disponible. Solicítelo! El Departamento de Transporte del Estado de Nueva York Estudio Operacional del Sagtikos / Sunken Meadow State Parkway Reunión de Información Pública 2 N N Sagtikos / Sunken Meadow State Parkway History The Parkway was built in western Suffolk County in the 1950’s as part of Robert Moses’ Long Island Regional Park and Parkway Plan. The Sagtikos State Parkway (SAG) portion was built from 1950 to 1953. The Sunken Meadow State Parkway (SM) portion was built from 1954 to 1957. The Sagtikos / Sunken Meadow State Parkway was designated a National Historic Parkway in 2012. The parkway consists of two roadways with two lanes in each direction separated by a variable width median, which is narrower at the bridge crossings. Within the corridor there are 21 bridges, 11 concrete and 10 steel. The parkway is a non-commercial limited access facility. The Sagtikos State Parkway handles approximately 90,000 vehicles per day between the Southern State Parkway and the Long Island Expressway (I-495). The Sunken Meadow State Parkway handles approximately 65,000 vehicles per day between the Long Island Expressway and NY 25 and approximately 30,000 vehicles per day north
    [Show full text]
  • Connect Long Island Suffolk County Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study
    Connect Long Island Suffolk County Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study Prepared for Suffolk County Prepared by In Association with: Parsons Brinckerhoff B. Thayer Associates CJ2 Communication Strategies Final Report May 2014 The preparation of this report has been financed through the U.S. Department ofTransportation’s Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration or the State of New York. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. Suffolk County Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study was funded through the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council SFY (2013-2014) Unified Planning Work Program project (Suffolk County BRT Study and PTSU13D00.H02). This report was funded through matching grants from the Federal Transit Administration and from the Federal Highway Administration. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT Cover and inside cover image: OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The rendering on the cover AND PLANNING depicts the Bus Rapid Transit Joanne Minieri Gilbert Anderson, P.E. station at Stony Brook University Deputy County Executive Commissioner as proposed by the Suffolk County and Commissioner Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Garry Lenberger Study, including the Stony Brook Sarah Lansdale Transportation Division University Hospital expansion in Director of Planning Director of Transportation the background.
    [Show full text]