Ending Gridlock: East End Transportation Futures

May, 2005

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SEEDS – Transportation Scenario Matrix

Maintain Current Land Use Create “Preservation” and “Development” Areas

Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 Current Reduce Maximize Maintain Current Maximize Buildout Buildout Buildout Hamlet Center Hamlet Center Reduction (Over Transportation (Do Nothing) by 50% Densities Densities 60%)

1 Current Improvements Only

2 Transportation Management Strategies

3 Transit Focused Investment

4 Roadway Focused Investment

5 Large Scale Investment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 12, 2004, the Institute 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 , makes the following observations and recommendations.

Observations:

1. While the Hampton’s are well known for its summer gridlock, 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 ; the networks are over capacity during key travel periods much of the year (e.g., rush hours on the 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, , 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 “solve” 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.

i 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, 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 to expand usage of the Long Island Railroad corridors, which are poorly utilized. The existing LIRR cars are designed for travel to and from . 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 The most important poorly coordinated with ferry and rail service. During the summer months, local improvement the region can buses should run more frequently and make is to expand usage of the schedules should be better publicized. Long Island Railroad corridors, Transit agencies and local elected officials must work more together to address these which are poorly utilized. service gaps. 6. A regional Internet transit website should be established to provide information on: 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 to Riverhead or west of Riverhead would alleviate some summer congestion on the . 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 HOV/bus 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 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

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

iii

This report is printed on recycled paper. Section 1: 1 INTRODUCTION

On March 12, 2004, the Institute for Sustainable Development hosted 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, now extends to both forks well beyond the summer months. But, if the problem 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 Yet investments in new home building industry which is attracted to, but also erodes, the area’s rural landscape; transportation infrastructure • There is a significant shortage of affordable generally take decades to housing for the local workforce; move from initial design • Pervasive congestion exists on all primary roads, the road networks are over capacity during key to completion … 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.

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/gallery/art-lg/TRAFFIC.GIF

1 Road expansion increases the region’s reliance on cars, adding to automobile pollution, greenhouse 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 from 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 erode 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 ferries. 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 , 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 … a better mix of transit laws continue to encourage sprawl throughout the region. At the present time there exists inadequate political services …will give each of momentum to push development in this new direction. us more transit choices and Proponents of environmental initiatives like the land preservation tax have in the recent past successfully more flexibility to create argued for the need to “preserve” the region’s rural healthier communities. character. While significant farmland and environ- mentally sensitive parcels 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.

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 1.18 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.

While Long Island was once a bedroom community to 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 (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-large 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 Transportation Task Force, the Suffolk County Department of Public Works has been working on a federally aided corridor study to develop a comprehensive 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 the 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 Route S92, the major bus structure, which is currently scheduled for 2006.) line on the East End, has Over the past several years we’ve selectively upgraded bus grown to 281,000 riders lines throughout the SCT bus route network. On the East End, important bus lines were extended from Middle Island in 2003 becoming the third and Center Moriches to Riverhead to provide direct bus most traveled bus line in rides to East Northport and Patchogue. On the North and South Forks, Route S92, Orient Point/Greenport to East the entire system. 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 … 2/3 of our riders are bus services between Montauk and East Hampton have seen growth in work trips as well. commuters using SCT buses We have worked with our riders, bus drivers and other to meet their everyday trip interested parties to inventory existing bus stops as well as making requirements. 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 partnered 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 More than 75% of respondents support more As a local elected official for almost twenty years, I can easily attest to the fact that traffic and transportation related issues rail service for eastern have remained constant themes throughout my public service Long Island … to the East End of 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 , 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%. 3. Improved bus service, including shuttle buses to Establishment of bike village centers from outside parking areas received more than 60% support. paths was supported by 4. Automobile and passenger ferries to Connecticut were 75% of the respondents. 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 after the March 2004 Conference.

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 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 transportation 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 … the creation of a Peconic would consist of five members, one from each town Bay Regional Transportation within the regional district. Authority, is crucial to This past September, I traveled to Cape Cod to meet with representatives from the area and to discuss the addressing the East End’s Cape’s Regional Transportation Authority. In order to unique infrastructure establish the Cape Code Regional Transportation Authority, the Massachusetts State Legislature enacted and population. enabling legislation. As such, this is the same mechanism that I am trying 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-sacs.

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 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 … the Long Island Rail length of the track system clouds the opportunity for creating a light rail system. These systems are up and running elsewhere Road needs to reconsider in the Country and we should have that alternative provided its philosophy regarding to us on the East End. 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.

It was several years ago that my predecessors at the East End Mayors and Supervisors, through its East End We cannot go it alone. We Transportation Council, sought to look for the federal need a regional approach to funding that led to SEEDS, which is a regional planning effort. SEEDS is providing us with a forum to examine a a number of issues. 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 transportation 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 … SEEDS is striving to participate in SEEDS through monthly meetings held create a regional consensus throughout the East End region. 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 sensitive 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 to the transportation 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, Calverton, 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 to 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 tool to 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 towards 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 makers 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.

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, Woodbury 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 corner 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 TAZs, 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 TAZs 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 TAZ in the news – TAZ-2469 in the Town of East Hampton. That’s just the location of the TAZ 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, etc.

38000 36000 34000 32000 30000 28000 26000 24000 22000 20000 NYS Rt 25 18000 NYS Rt 27 16000 14000 12000

Number of Vehicles 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Month

Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes NYS RT 25 and RT 27.

13 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 so 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 distributed 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, density) 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 capacity, 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 TAZs 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 state 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., LIRR), and Ferry systems.

Major steps 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 type 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 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, the 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 suburban 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.

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 Section 4: REGIONAL VIEWS ON SEEDS

Gerry Bogacz Chief Planner, NYMTC

The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) is a regional council of government. Its region includes New York City, Long Island, and the Lower . And these regional councils are required by federal transportation legislation so that these regional transportation areas will be eligible for federal transportation funds.

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 root problems of transportation congestion without discussing the disassociation of land use planning and transportation planning – which can lead to situations 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 that 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 then 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 not 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 The model is a tool; has to be a history and culture of working together. the model does not make SEEDS was started in April 2001. It started with extensive the decision. The people community visioning in both land use and transportation futures. The land use and transportation scenarios did not in this room – elected 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 officials, transportation compilation of what we heard. Compiling the scenarios was planners, businessmen, controversial and we had to work through several particular sticking points to get the scenarios that everyone could live and citizens – make with. But like everything else in this process, the scenarios the decisions. represent a consensus of everyone’s input.

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 expanded 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 One final observation – it’s really important that 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.

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 twenty thousand people watched 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.LITP2000.com). You can see what people were saying in 1997. They weren’t saying things much different than what people are saying today.

The LITP 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 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 The challenge to developing new with the people about the preferred plan. A series of public forums were held across Long transit solutions for Long Island is Island, which included a public information to provide a fast, reliable, modern booth at the . At these forums people were given the opportunity to watch a transit system to get people where video describing the study process and the recommendations, and they were encouraged to they want to go within Long Island ask questions and make comments one-on-one without using their cars. 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 people 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 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 Mass transit for most people on implementation strategy. The strategy lays out Long Island means that there are how the recommendations can be implemented between now and the year 2025. 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 to 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 to transportation problems is for people to 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 most people on Long Island means that there are two people in the car and they can use the 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 , 75% of the money goes to subsidize mass transit.

20 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.

1. East Side access for the LIRR 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 . 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 LIRR – 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. 4. 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? 5. 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. 6. “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 10 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 Let’s replace LIRR cars with To discuss the idea of a new multimodal system light rail vehicles, which run for Long Island, we have to incorporate together affordable housing, workforce housing, land use more frequently. and transportation, and energy and the environment. How do we do that? Let’s replace LIRR 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.

21 The Long Island Association and the Progressive 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 LIRR 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 today?” 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 HOV lanes. The idea of HOV 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 You just can’t widen roads public transit system. Right now is the time for Long Island to build a public transit system. We’re going to anymore. It doesn’t work. be here a long time. People say, “You’re talking 20 years It’s called induced demand. 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.

We need to determine the carrying 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 HOV lanes, 105 miles of arterial widening, and 20 road- widening extensions. This plan may have changed a little bit because the 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 country. 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 LIRR, which is an amazing railroad. It is the largest commuter railroad in the Country. 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 LITP2000 Coalition is made of a coalition of over 85 organizations opposed to the DOT’s plan. That LITP2000 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 LIRR, and access in the HUB.

22 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

23 Section 5: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

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 transportation bill for the federal government.

One issue being considered 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 transit makes sense from numerous perspectives, not the least of which is from an environmental standpoint.

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 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 32% of our nation’s roads are are substandard. Estimates also put congestion costs at now substandard and 48% $67 billion a year due to the time we spend in our cars that we could all be doing something more productive. of bridges are substandard. And we expend about 6 billion gallons of gasoline a …national investment in year simply because of the time we spend idling in traffic. These are all reasons why I believe a national transportation is a wise use investment in transportation is a wise use of of government resources. 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

3 Robert DeLuca, President Group for the South Fork

Traffic assessment figures recently 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 gauntlet from the Shinnecock Canal to points East for some time. In short, traffic is horrendous and getting worse just about every year.

Southampton’s figures reveal a rate of traffic growth on County Road 39 (North Road) of … traffic is horrendous and getting approximately 40% during the last 18 years. Notably average daily volume has grown about worse just about every year. 30% more rapidly than peak season volumes, which experienced a more modest, 27% increase during the same 18-year period.

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).

Although much of the recent increase in volume has been … on an average summer day, some attributed to the last decades’ boom in new construction, volume 38,000 vehicles cross the Shinnecock Canal. 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.

3 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 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-trade commerce and community activities still occur.

For just as many years the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) 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 LIRR 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 traffic could well be what we need to reopen a discussion of inter-hamlet train shuttles. To move LIRR, 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 play a 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 transportation infrastructure that remains consistent with our commitment to protecting the local environment and maintaining rural character.

I hope you will choose to help.

27 WHAT YOU CAN DO Contact: US Congressman Tim Bishop 325 Middle Country Road C/o Ms. Jane Finalborgo Suite #4 33 Flying Point Road Selden, New York 11784 Suite 119 Fax: 631-696-2307 Southampton, New York 11968 Fax: 631-696-4520 NYS Assemblyman Fred Thiele 2302 Main Street US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton P.O. Box 2302 C/o Ms. Resi Cooper Bridgehampton, New York 11932 155 Pinelawn Road FAX: 631-537-2836 Suite 250 North Melville, New York 11747 Fax: 631-249-2825 NYS Senator Ken Lavalle

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 4 Hank de Cillia Market researcher & consultant, Sag Harbor

Most people know that decisions regarding zoning and development on the East End are made locally, at the Village and Town levels. When it comes to decisions about transportation, however, most of them are not made locally. Instead, they are 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 (LIRR) and the Suffolk County Transit System (SCTS). However, these organizations have charters that mainly focus outside our region. The LIRR is the nation’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 LIRR 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 LIRR 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 our west.

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 — therefore 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 earlier draft of this proposal appeared in the Southampton Press in December 2003.

29 The East End needs a rural transit network, consisting of regularly scheduled shuttle trains, buses, and ferries that 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, as follows:

• Year Round Residents – Daily Inter-Hamlet Travel, Periodic Long Distance Travel (e.g. NYC) • Second Homeowners – Long Distance Travel (e.g. NYC), Some Inter-Hamlet Travel • Workers – Daily Weekday Commuting Tourists – Weekend and Seasonal Travel • Freight – Weekly to Daily Rail Freight Delivery and Pick Up

East End Transit (EETran) would augment, not replace, use of The East End needs a rural transit network, personal vehicles. If the public made use of the service only 15- consisting of regularly scheduled shuttle 20% of the time, we could trains, buses, and ferries that can move five significantly reduce our present road congestion and be better distinct user groups … prepared for future sustainable growth. (A 2003 survey 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 trucks 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 LIRR commuter trains would terminate at Speonk (or better at Gabreski Airport if it is developed as an intermodal transit hub). South Fork passengers would transfer to small-scale shuttle trains (length determined by ridership) for the remainder of their trip east. On the North Fork, the LIRR 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 remainder 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 LIRR 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 run a 30 minute schedule in both directions and be timed to coincide with the arrival of shuttle trains for seamless connections. On Shelter Island, the bus service would run 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 Cross Sound Ferry at Orient Point on the North Fork and the Villages of Sag Harbor, Southampton and East Hampton on the South Fork.

30 Depending on rider 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.

Some of these passenger ferries and/or water taxis would also take people directly to/from the Orient Point ferry slip---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 clearly identify the entire rural transit network.

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 Ticket fees would be subsidized by Transit to develop ridership in the early years, through all local and regional media outlets … government public transportation print, radio, television...and the Internet. A grants to encourage usage, at least brochure with map would also clearly identify EETran routes and schedules. 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 (LIRR, Suffolk County Transit, Sunrise Bus, , 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 we should develop a While local traffic congestion won’t be solved anytime comprehensive online data soon, for a modest cost we should develop a comprehensive online data retrieval system focused on the retrieval system … 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.

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 transportation Internet servers, particularly ones that promote long-term sustainable regional development.

5 Originally drafted in May 2003, this paper was not presented at the March 2004 Conference.

32 The region has an immediate need for this technology. While congestion is a major problem for eastern Long Island, regional 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 and HOV 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; LIRR 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

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 The most important existing LIRR cars are designed for travel to and from improvement the region Manhattan. The corridor could function more efficiently as a regional light rail or trolley service with can make is to expand more frequent stops. The SEEDS process should examine what level of land use density would allow usage of the Long Island transit services, like light rail, to function efficiently. Railroad corridors, which ❈ Assemblyman Fred Thiele has proposed the creation are poorly utilized of a regional transit authority; this may be the most effective way forward for improving usage of the LIRR 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 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: Transit agencies should consider highway congestion and optimal travel times; expanding the usage of shuttle construction schedules; and scheduling information on bus, rail, and ferry services. 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 ❈ Opposition to ferry services seems to preclude their expansion on the South Fork at this 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 merits 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 HOV/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 Peconic Community Council http://www.akrf.com/ http://www.pccouncil.org/

Bike Plan Transportation Route 303 Corridor Sustainable www.bikeplan.com Development Study www.co.rockland.ny.us/planning/landuse/303Sur Center for Excellence for Sustainable vey.htm Development, Dept of Energy www.sustainable.doe.gov Suffolk County Planning Dept http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/planning/ Long Island Association http://www.longislandassociation.org/ SEEDS: Sustainable East End Development Strategies Long Island Progressive Coalition http://www.seedsproject.com/ http://www.lipc.org/ Sustainable Long Island Long Island Sound Waterborne www.sustainableli.org Transportation Plan http://www.nymtc.or Town of East Hampton g/waterborne_plan/index.htm http://www.town.east-hampton.ny.us/

Long Island Sound Ferry Coalition Town of Riverhead http://www.nymtc.org/ferry_site/ http://www.riverheadli.com/

Long Island Rail Road Town of Shelter Island www.mta.nyc.ny.us/LIRR/index.html http://www.shelterislandtown.us/

Long Island Transportation Plan 2000 Town of Southampton www.litp2000.com http://www.town.southampton.ny.us/

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Town of Southold http://www.nymtc.org http://southoldtown.northfork.net/

NYMTC Regional Transportation Plan Transportation Alternatives, New York City http://www.nymtc.org/plan.html www.transalt.com

New York State Department of Tri-state Transportation Campaign Transportation www.tstc.org www.dot.state.ny.us Walkable Communities Parsons Brinckerhoff www.walkable.org http://www.pbworld.com/

36 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% Under 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 17,068 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% Vacant 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 12,479 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 10,749 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 town-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 1990 2000 Change Percent Change Total population 2,263 2,228 -35 -1.5% Under 18 years 374 404 30 8.0% 65 years and over 658 638 -20 -3.0% Median age 48.7 49.2 0.5 1.0% Population density/acre1 0.312 0.307 -0.005 -1.5% Total housing units 2,148 2,370 222 10.3% Occupied housing units 1,017 996 -21 -2.1% Owner-occupied 862 836 -26 -3.0% Renter-occupied 155 160 5 3.2% Vacant units 1,131 1,374 243 21.5% Seasonal use 1,018 1,307 289 28.4% Households 1,120 996 -124 -11.1% Average household size 2.23 2.24 0.01 0.4% Households with under 18 209 207 -2 -1.0% Households with 65 & older 471 457 -14 -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

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/acre1 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 1.7% 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 1990 2000 Change Percent Change Total population 19,836 20,599 763 3.8% Under 18 years 4,014 4421 407 10.1% 65 years and over 4,860 4,756 -104 -2.1% Median age 43.1 44.7 1.6 3.7% Population density/acre1 0.57 0.59 0.02 3.8% Total housing units 12,979 13,769 790 6.1% Occupied housing units 8,125 8461 336 4.1% Owner-occupied 4,854 6824 1970 40.6% Renter-occupied 1,704 1637 -67 -3.9% Vacant units 4,854 5,308 454 9.4% Seasonal use 4,152 4,689 537 12.9% Households 8,125 8461 336 4.1% Average household size 2.41 2.40 -0.01 -0.4% Households with under 18 2,153 2,373 220 10.2% Householder with 65 & older 3,376 3,283 -93 -2.8% Notes: 1. Based on town-wide upland acreage: 34,767acres Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000; Suffolk County Dept. of Planning, July 2000. Edited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies

40 Table 2: Housing and Population Summary Table

Total and Seasonal Housing Units Total 2000 Projected Units Town 1990 2000 Seasonal Units at Saturation East Hamp ton 17,068 19,640 10,693 27,270 Riverhe ad 10,801 12,478 1,165 26,240 Shelter Isla nd 2,148 2,370 1,307 4,166 Southampton 33,795 38,280 15,202 52,285 Southold 12,979 13,769 4,689 21,831 East End Total 76,791 86,538 33,056 131,792

Year-Round Population Town 1990 2000 At Saturation East Hamp ton 16,132 19,719 27,099 Riverhe ad 23,011 27,680 60,361 Shelter Isla nd 2,263 2,228 2,511 Southampton 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 Hamp ton 53,386 71,906 97,383 Riverhe ad 12,825 12,784 28,051 Shelter Isla nd 5,519 6,889 13,167 Southampton 84,932 100,887 141,108 Southold 25,503 28,005 47,202 East End Total 182,164 220,472 319,711

Source: Sustainable East End Development Stragies Inventory and Analysis Report. (Revised 2004) http://www.seedsproject.com.

41 Table 3: Land Use Acreage by Town for Eastern Suffolk County, 1999

Table 3 Land Use Acreage by Town for Eastern Suffolk County, 1999

Riverhead Southold Shelter Island Southampton EastHampton Totals Low density residential 2,094 5% 5,566 16% 1,810 25% 15,194 17% 7,953 17% 32,617 15% Medium density residential 3,187 7% 4,300 12% 837 12% 10,935 12% 5,768 12% 25,027 11% High density residential 761 2% 236 1% 14 0% 580 1% 405 1% 1,996 1% Commercial 999 2% 654 2% 146 2% 2,182 3% 619 1% 4,600 2% Industrial 3,661 9% 149 0% 12 0% 789 1% 266 1% 4,877 2% Institutional 618 1% 1,242 4% 123 2% 2,244 3% 294 1% 4,521 2% Recreation & open space 8,510 20% 4,105 12% 2,617 36% 24,041 27% 14,872 32% 54,145 24% Agriculture 16,860 39% 9,758 28% 156 2% 7,940 9% 1,495 3% 36,209 16% Vacant 4,139 10% 6,008 17% 1,371 19% 15,023 17% 10,899 23% 37,440 17% Transportation 2,225 5% 2,423 7% 131 2% 9,318 11% 4,075 9% 18,172 8% Utilities 157 0% 241 1% 3 0% 493 1% 243 1% 1,137 1% 42 Wastehandling 86 0% 85 0% 27 0% 224 0% 107 0% 529 0% TOTAL 43,297 100% 34,767 100% 7,247 100% 88,963 100% 46,996 100% 221,270 100%

Notes: Low density residential: ≤1 unit/acre; Medium density residential: >1 to <5 units/acre; High density residential: ≥5 units /a c r e Edited andand Compiled: Compiled by : bySustainableSustainable East East End DevelopmentEnd Development Strategies Strategies Table 4: LIRR Transit Data

LIRR Station Ridership & Parking-Weekday Station AM Peak AM Peak Parking Parking Percent Period Period Capacity Demand Occupancy “Ons” “Offs”

Riverhead 16 7 22 17 77% Mattituck 2 8 71 32 45% Southold 0 9 20 1 5% Greenport 8 3 99 49 50% Westhampton 11 8 38 8 21% Quogue 3 0 N/A N/A N/A Hampton Bays 10 15 190 30 16% Southampton 14 7 74 44 60% Bridgehampton 9 10 85 50 59% East Hampton 25 16 373 103 28% Amagansett 4 3 35 20 57% Montauk 11 5 60 3 5% 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

LIRR Summer Weekend Ridership (South Fork) Station Friday (2-10PM) Saturday (10AM-7PM) Sunday (1-9PM) Passengers On/Off Passengers On/Off Passengers On/Off Westhampton 54/757 59/123 356/7 Hampton Bays 45/209 47/122 163/14 Southampton 62/362 64/180 368/24 Bridgehampton 34/447 0/122 273/3 East Hampton 0/902 0/124 577/0 Amagansett 34/114 0/42 115/0 Montauk 0/266 0/81 249/0 Notes: Counts taken on August 13-15, 1999 Source: LIRR 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 8:42 am 11:01 am 1:55 pm 11:47 am 2:40 pm FRI 3:15 pm 6:20 pm 4:01 pm ON LY 6:17 pm 11:02 pm 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 To New York City Monday to Fridays Except Monday to Fridays Except Holidays* Holidays* Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Penn Penn Riverhead Riverhead Station Station 7:39 am 9:47 am 6:08 am 8:20 am 12:15 pm 2:27 pm 12:21 pm 2:33 pm 5:41 pm 7:37 pm 3:16 pm 5:37 pm 5:53 pm 8:00 pm 10:34 pm 12:46 am * Winter 2005 schedule; schedules vary by season. Source: http://mta.info/lirr/html/ttn/lirrtt.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 ...... 10.5 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 Southold COMMUTING TO WORK Workers 16 years and over ...... 8,917 100.0% Car, truck, 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 are to promote research, education and systemic change in the area of sustainable development in order to make Long Island a more sustainable region. This conference complements the Institute’s work on land use, transportation, and energy – some of the core 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 transportation 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 parts 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 review several reorganization strategies.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank AKRF, Inc. (www.akrf.com) for their generous financial support for our March 12, 2003 conference. We also thank EW Howell Co. for advertising support and Allison Pye for 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 ferry 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