Ending Gridlock: East End Transportation

Futures

May, 2005

INSTITUTE FORSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

SEEDSLand Use – TransportationScenario Matrix

Land Use

Transportation

1 CurrentImprovementsOnly

2 TransportationManagementStrategies

3 TransitFocusedInvestment

4 RoadwayFocusedInvestment

5 Large Scale Investment

1CurrentBuildout (Do Nothing)

2ReduceBuildout by 50%

3MaximizeHamlet Center Densities

4Maintain CurrentHamlet Center Densities

5Maximize Buildout Reduction (Over60%)

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 12, 2004, the Institute for Sustainable Development hosted Ending Gridlock, a conferenceat Southampton College. This report, which documents the major problems facing transportation andland use on the East End of Long Island, makes the following observations and recommendations.

Observations:

1. While the Hampton’s are well known for its summer gridlock, traffic congestion now extends toboth 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 attractedto, but also erodes, the area’s rural landscape;

f. There is a significant shortage of affordable housing for the local workforce;

g. Pervasive congestion exists on all primary roads; the road networks are over capacityduring key travel periods much of the year (e.g., rush hours on the South Fork and summerweekends).

h. Public transit is minimal, unreliable, and poorly coordinated.

3. Transportation and land use are interdependent; there is no way to separate the two. Thetransportation system is used by the people who live, work, and visit here and their transit needsare defined by land use patterns. Part of the problem with the last couple of decades is that wehave been separating land use from transportation decision-making.

4. Transportation planners and engineers have traditionally responded to increasing congestion bywidening roads and constructing bypasses around congested villages. This kind of road expansion,however, only encourages additional auto dependency, paving over valuable land and increasingsuburban sprawl. Within a short period of time, congestion problems inevitably return, with theincreased number of cars adding additional congestion burdens to secondary roads.

5. Regional mobility will only be improved if local and regional governments commit to developingwell designed multi-modal transit systems that encompass walking and bicycle paths, bus, mini-bus and jitney services, rail and light-rail options, and water taxis and passenger ferries. For theforeseeable future, congestion will continue to be with us; we cannot “solve” congestion. Weshould provide a wider range of alternative transit modes and offer transit services on a morefrequent 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, busesand 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 haveservices 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 IslandRailroad corridors, which are poorly utilized. The existing LIRR cars are designed for travel toand from Manhattan. The corridor could function more efficiently as a regional light rail ortrolley 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 areharmful and must be reversed in favor of “smart growth” design principles that favor transit-oriented development, with higher densityin hamlets and villages while preservingfarm land and “open space.”

5. The S92 bus service is inadequate andpoorly coordinated with ferry and railservice. During the summer months, localbuses should run more frequently andschedules should be better publicized.Transit agencies and local elected officialsmust work more together to address theseservice gaps.

6. A regional Internet transit website shouldbe established to provide information on:highway congestion and optimal travel times; construction schedules; and schedulinginformation on bus, rail, and ferry services.

7.. Bike lanes should continue to be expanded into a regionally coherent network. Suffolk Countyshould 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 thistime, efforts should be undertaken to establish passenger service to and from Riverhead andGreenport to Sag Harbor. Ferry service from Connecticut to Riverhead or west of Riverheadwould alleviate some summer congestion on the North Fork. This option merits further attentionand 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 theaddition of any significant road-widening;

• Promoting carpool services;

• Creating toll roads, with funds used to subsidize bus, van, and trolley services.

ii

The most importantimprovement the region canmake is to expand usage of theLong Island Railroad corridors,which are poorly utilized.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SECTION 2: LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Suffolk County Executive Steve LevyState Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr.East End Mayors and Supervisors Assoc., Chair Patrick A. Heaney

SECTION 3: THE SEEDS PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Peter LeibowitzBernie KalusJames Kahng

SECTION 4: REGIONAL VIEWS ON SEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Gerry BogaczWayne UgolikMitch PallyLisa Tyson

SECTION 5: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: CONGRESSMAN TIMOTHY BISHOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

SECTION 6: LOCAL VOICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Robert DeLucaHank de CilliaScott Carlin and David Sprintzen

SECTION 7: RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

SECTION 8: APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Related Internet LinksAcronymsData TablesAbout the Institute and AcknowledgementsSEEDS Land Use – Transportation Scenario Matrix

iii

This report is printed on recycled paper.

1

Section 1: INTRODUCTION

1

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 seriesof policy recommendations. This Introduction, the concluding Recommendations, and the ExecutiveSummary highlight the Institute’s evaluation of East End Transportation issues. The other conferencespeakers did not contribute to these sections of the report.

While the Hampton’s are well known for its summer gridlock, traffic congestion now extends to bothforks well beyond the summer months. But, if the problem is clear, the solutions are not. Seriousdisagreements exist over the utility of expanding roads and ferry, bus, and rail services. Can theseconflicts 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 generalenvironmental preservation;

• There is a booming second home economy andhome building industry which is attracted to, butalso erodes, the area’s rural landscape;

• There is a significant shortage of affordablehousing for the local workforce;

• Pervasive congestion exists on all primary roads,the road networks are over capacity during keytravel periods much of the year (e.g., rush hourson 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 transportationinfrastructure generally take decades to move from initial design to completion, and the East End doesn’thave 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 bywidening roads and constructing bypasses around congested villages. This kind of road expansion,however, only encourages additional auto dependency, while paving over valuable land, and increasingwasteful and ugly suburban sprawl. Within a short period of time, congestion problems inevitablyreturn, with the increased number of cars adding additional congestion burdens to secondary roads.

1Cover image reprinted from http://www.standardreporting.net/arttime/gallery/art-lg/TRAFFIC.GIF

Yet investments in newtransportation infrastructuregenerally take decades to move from initial design to completion …

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 landdevelopment and sprawl, which increases property taxes (to maintain roads and related services) andaccelerates the conversion of farm lands and woodlands to housing. The result is degradation in theregion’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 othermode of transit offers greater possibilities for improving mobility, promoting economic development,social equity, environmental quality, and human health than automobiles, especially single occupancyvehicles which are our primary mode of daily commuting. These quality of life issues transcend localconcerns, including a wide range of global issues from global warming to the economic costs ofdependence 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 gainscan be quantified in many ways, including reductions in asthma rates, automobile accidents, commutingtimes, paved surfaces, road runoff into water bodies, and increases in the per capita costs oftransportation. These impacts unnecessarily erode the generally high quality of life for which the EastEnd is so well known.

Regional mobility will only be improved if local and regional governments commit to developing welldesigned multi-modal transit systems that encompass walking and bicycle paths, bus, mini-bus andjitney services, rail and light-rail options, and water taxis and passenger ferries. Offering a better mix oftransit services, however, will not “solve” our gridlock problems. It will give each of us more transitchoices and more flexibility to create healthier communities.

In our opinion, transit systems must be built with an explicit commitment to “smart growth” planningprinciples. Directing development towards hamlet centers is the only viable long-term strategy forreducing automobile dependency, expanding the usage of public transit services, and preservingfarmland and open space. This would represent a dramatic departure from post-war suburban style

development on Long Island. Local residents insist uponthe need to preserve the rural qualities of eastern LongIsland. That is not possible so long as existing zoninglaws continue to encourage sprawl throughout the region.At the present time there exists inadequate politicalmomentum to push development in this new direction.Proponents of environmental initiatives like the landpreservation tax have in the recent past successfullyargued for the need to “preserve” the region’s ruralcharacter. While significant farmland and environ-mentally sensitive parcels have been saved through thesenew policies, the long-term direction of current landmanagement will be the continued loss of the area’s rural

landscape. Increased hamlet density will also enhance the region’s social, cultural, and economicvitality, while providing opportunities for expanding affordable housing for local workers and thechildren of current residents and for providing higher levels of transit services.

2

… a better mix of transitservices …will give each of us more transit choices and more flexibility to create healthier communities.

Section 2:LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS

The Honorable Steve Levy,Suffolk County Executive

As much as sitting in traffic frustrates us, driving ourautomobile is the preferred method of travel on LongIsland – we love our cars. In Suffolk County, there areabout 1.18 million registered cars, and about 1.05 millionpeople with drivers’ licenses in a county of 1.4 million.Only about 6% of the households on Long Island do notown a car.

The picture of the Long Islander sitting in a car is the legacy of a 50-year eastern migration of suburbandevelopment. Nassau is over 90% developed, andSuffolk, over 64% developed. And that followed or was followed by paved ribbons of roadway like the LIE, Northern and Southern State Parkways, andSunrise Highway on the South, and Jericho Turnpikeon the North.

While Long Island was once a bedroom community toNew York City, where our parents and grandparentscame to live, today, we are living, playing and workingright here on Long Island. 87% of Suffolk residentswho 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 “tradeparade” as they head out east early in the morning andreturn to the west later in the day after completingtheir workday. The Regional Plan Association describesLong Island’s development this way:

“… development patterns at densities high enough to generate largevolumes of travelers per square mile, but not high enough to warrant[support for] a robust transit network.”

However, despite this reality our regional bus systems are showing some of the highest levels of use ever– almost 31 million trips taken on LI Bus and 4.5 million on Suffolk County Transit (SCT). Yet, thereclearly 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, whichby-and-large is the province of our towns and villages through their home rule powers to zone andcontrol subdivisions, there are ways in which the county can work with communities and local electedofficials 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 ofPublic Works has been working on a federally aided corridor study to develop a comprehensive plan forimprovements to County Road (CR) 39, North Road. The “Expanded Project Proposal,” (EPP) whichis a detailed report outlining traffic safety and operational needs within the corridor has beencompleted. Although additional federal funds for CR 39 are not available at this time, the County hasappropriated $2.8 million dollars to continue the design process. (In the short term, we are movingforward on the design of the reconstruction of the CR 39,North Road Bridge over St. Andrew’s Road. A consultanthas been selected and fee negotiations are underway. Federalfunds are available for the design and construction of thisstructure, which is currently scheduled for 2006.)

Over the past several years we’ve selectively upgraded buslines throughout the SCT bus route network. On the EastEnd, important bus lines were extended from Middle Islandand Center Moriches to Riverhead to provide direct busrides to East Northport and Patchogue. On the North andSouth Forks, Route S92, Orient Point/Greenport to EastHampton via Riverhead was upgraded to hourly service.Overall the net result was record rider ship for SCT servicesin 2002 and 2003. Route S92, the major bus line on the East End, has grown to 281,000 riders in 2003becoming the third most traveled bus line in the entire system. SCAT, our ADA Para transit servicethat provides curb-to-curb reservation transportation to our more seriously disabled riders also carriedrecord 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% toschool. Therefore 2/3 of our riders are commuters using SCT buses to meet their everyday trip makingrequirements. Combined with growing rider levels, SCT is proving to be an increasingly important part

of our local economy. Certain S92 trips during commuterhours are actually experiencing full seated loads. Otherbus services between Montauk and East Hampton haveseen growth in work trips as well.

We have worked with our riders, bus drivers and otherinterested parties to inventory existing bus stops as well asidentify new stops. Just this month, we began removingold bus stop signs and installing new ones at over 3,200locations throughout the SCT bus network. These are

attractive signs sporting the new SCT yellow and blue colors and logo, with ADA compliant letteringidentifying the bus route. Most importantly, route destination and the public information telephonenumber will finally be correct. In addition, 20 of the route S92 bus stops will have placards that displayschedule 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 inthe Towns of Riverhead and Southampton. We have partnered with these towns to bring attractive andsomewhat unique bus shelters to the system in those towns. Specifically, both towns have hadconsiderable input into the design of the shelters, each adding their own custom features. The Countysecured grant funding to support the purchase and installation of the shelters and the towns haveagreed to maintain those shelters including providing any future shelter upgrades they may desire.

4

Route S92, the major busline on the East End, hasgrown to 281,000 riders in 2003 becoming the thirdmost traveled bus line in the entire system.

… 2/3 of our riders arecommuters using SCT busesto meet their everyday tripmaking requirements.

(Note: SCT operates 11 bus lines in East Hampton, Riverhead, Southampton, and Southold. No SCTbus 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 isthrough increased attention to important environmental, economic, housing, and business issues facingus. These are also among the issues that go to the core of how we want to see the landscape of the EastEnd 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, andRemediation and Redeveloping Brown fields.

Fred W. Thiele, Jr. 2

New York State Assemblyman

As a local elected official for almost twenty years, I can easilyattest to the fact that traffic and transportation related issueshave remained constant themes throughout my public serviceto the East End of Long Island.

In response to the growing concerns of my constituents, thisyear I distributed a survey within the Towns of Southampton and East Hampton on a myriad oftransportation 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 railroadservice, ferries, highway infrastructure, bike paths, and buses.

Among the results were the following:1. More than 75% of respondents support more rail service for eastern Long Island, including

shuttle trains from Speonk to Montauk, additional non-stop trains from New York City, and“Park and Rail” service at Westhampton, East Hampton, and Southampton

2. The extension of the Sunrise Highway (State Route27) to Amagansett was opposed 60% to 33%.

3. Improved bus service, including shuttle buses tovillage centers from outside parking areas receivedmore than 60% support.

4. Automobile and passenger ferries to Connecticut wereopposed by 12% and 5% margins, respectively.

5. New York City to East End and an East End Looppassenger 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 transportationimprovements was supported by a margin of 53% to 21%.

5

2Assemblyman 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.

More than 75% ofrespondents support morerail service for eastern Long Island …

Establishment of bikepaths was supported by75% of the respondents.

This last item, the creation of a Peconic Bay Regional Transportation Authority, is crucial to addressingthe East End’s unique infrastructure and population. It is clear to me and my constituency, that theLong Island Rail Road and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have been inattentive anddisinterested 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 canconcentrate on local transportation matters, including the improvement and development of new andexisting transportation services. The Peconic Bay Regional Transportation District shall be comprised

of the Towns of Southampton, East Hampton, ShelterIsland, Southold, and Riverhead. The Authority itselfwould consist of five members, one from each townwithin the regional district.

This past September, I traveled to Cape Cod to meetwith representatives from the area and to discuss theCape’s Regional Transportation Authority. In order toestablish the Cape Code Regional TransportationAuthority, the Massachusetts State Legislature enactedenabling legislation. As such, this is the same mechanismthat 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 onall levels of government to address the needs and concerns of local residents. I will reintroduce mylegislation to create the Peconic Bay Regional Transportation Authority in January 2005 when the2005-06 Session commences. I welcome any additional input and I look forward to tackling the localissues facing my constituency.

Patrick A. Heaney Supervisor, Town of SouthamptonChair, East End Mayors and Supervisors Association

The East End Mayors and Supervisors Associationprovides a sounding board for issues affecting the EastEnd’s five towns and nine villages and also provides aregional voice to what we call the Peconic Region, EastEnd or Twin Forks of Long Island. The East End hasbeen 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 bestestimates are that we grow to between 180,000 to 200,000 residents during the summer. Our roads leadto destinations and pass-through to other locations. We all know what gridlock is. 40% of our seasonalgridlock 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 andimplementation. There are some general observations that reflect, somewhat accurately, the positiveview of the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association. It is the general consensus that new peakroads will not be a part of any practical solution for long-term transportation issues here on the East End.

6

… the creation of a PeconicBay Regional TransportationAuthority, is crucial toaddressing the East End’sunique infrastructure and population.

Over the last twenty years, each of the East End Towns has worked vigorously in a number of ways tosustain a particular quality of life and to protect the natural resources that are the major underpinningof our economy. Any decisions related to transportation will have, at their core, solutions that work tosustain the quality of life that we have strived to maintain here. For that reason, it is more likely thatthere 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 toreconsider its philosophy regarding the East End. The fact thatwe have only a limited number of scheduled trains moving thelength of the track system clouds the opportunity for creating alight rail system. These systems are up and running elsewherein the Country and we should have that alternative providedto us on the East End.

I do not believe it takes any serious engineering to coordinatelong-term train service with short, unobstructed, into-townshuttle service. We could move people a lot more quickly. This would provide the impetus needed for local towns to giveserious thought to pursuing grant money or to implement small shuttles that could be used within thevillages and hamlets in the Towns. This is the old Barry Commoner theme – everything is ultimatelyconnected to everything – you just need to discover the connections.

Though united in effort, each of the East End Towns has separate Comprehensive Plans which envisiontheir own distinctive futures for their respective Township. We cannot go it alone. We need a regionalapproach to a number of issues.

It was several years ago that my predecessors at the EastEnd Mayors and Supervisors, through its East EndTransportation Council, sought to look for the federalfunding that led to SEEDS, which is a regional planningeffort. SEEDS is providing us with a forum to examine awhole range of ideas and concepts that will ultimatelyresult in a series of recommendations.

Through common interests and agreements we will be able to coordinate our transportation labors andland use policies in an effort to facilitate smart growth.

7

… the Long Island RailRoad needs to reconsiderits philosophy regarding the East End.

We cannot go it alone. Weneed a regional approach toa number of issues.

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 apartnership between the New York MetropolitanTransportation Council (NYMTC) and the five EastEnd towns – East Hampton, Southampton, Riverhead,Southold, and Shelter Island. Local residents canparticipate in SEEDS through monthly meetings heldthroughout the East End region.

The SEEDS process can be summarized as a three stepprocess; data gathering, computer modeling, andanalysis and policy formulation. Large expenses andpolitical conflict can bring new transportation initiatives to a halt. For these reasons, SEEDS is strivingto create a regional consensus on regional planning priorities. This will help minimize opposition torecommendations and maximize political support for appropriating the necessary funds. To guide thisprocess, SEEDS constructed a five by five scenario matrix outlining different pairs of land use andtransportation planning alternatives.

Table 1: SEEDS LAND USE SCENARIOS

Scenario 1 Baseline Condition. Assumes that population and employment growthand the construction to support that growth will continue based uponeconomic and demographic trends and existing zoning regulations.

Scenario 2 Up zoning. Reduced population growth through various planning toolssuch as up zoning and purchasing development rights. The net effect isa 50% reduction in the total regional build out (permits, newconstruction, etc.) from Scenario 1.

Scenario 3 Concentrated Development. The growth and new constructionprojected in Scenario 1 is concentrated in higher density settlements,including existing villages and hamlets. This allows for greater controlover sprawl without adding constraints on the rate of new construction.Also allows for greater protection of farmlands, groundwater rechargezones, and other environmentally sensitive lands.

Scenario 4 Managed Development. Maintain existing village densities byexpanding the size of existing villages and hamlets and directing newgrowth and construction into existing and new settlements. Thisscenario controls future sprawl but at a lower density than Scenario 3.

Scenario 5 Concentrated Development, Reduced Population. Development will beconstrained within existing and new hamlets (same as 3 and 4), but atlower population growth rate (similar to 2).

8

… SEEDS is striving tocreate a regional consensus on regional planning priorities.

Table 2: SEEDS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOSScenario 1 Baseline. This scenario assumes that currently planned improvements to

the transportation grid, such as widening County Roads 58 and 39 willbe completed in coming years.

Scenario 2 Transportation Management Strategies. Improved interconnectionsbetween bus and rail, pedestrian safety, parking enhancements,improvements to bikeways. Goal is modest improvements in circulationat a modest cost.

Scenario 3 Transit Focused Investments. Increase the efficiency and frequency oftransit 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 andsecondary highways through road widening.

Scenario 5 Large Scale Investments. This would include expanded ferry servicesand road infrastructure, a new limited access highway fromSouthampton 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 fordifferent pairs of land use and transportation scenarios and the model will estimate a range oftransportation 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 thesecomputer results to inform their final recommendations at the end of the planning process. Thecomputer model is a tool to inform local decision making; the computer model does not determinelocal 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 ferryservices. 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 computermodel 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 havesufficient credibility? Many residents complain that they are not aware of SEEDS and do not feel thatthe process represents them. As the process moves forward and the model results are publicized, willthose sentiments dissipate or intensify? These questions are the kinds of issues and questions that localcitizens 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 becomefinal recommendations only if those proposals enjoy strong support among a broad cross-section of theEast 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 costlyand lengthy lawsuits and political delays. Public weariness towards transportation planning isunderstandable given that historic context, but the SEEDS process is not a spectator sport, it requirespublic participation.

9

Peter Leibowitz, AKRF, Inc.Transportation Modeling

Modeling is just a tool. It is not a plan. It’s not theoutcome. It’s not a recommendation. It’s a way toprovide a framework of analysis that communitiesparticipating in a study can move forward together withinformation that’s somewhat useful.

What does the model do, and why is it an importanttool for regional planning? (We emphasize that it isonly a tool.) It is important in that it establishes thebasis for evaluating future conditions. Basically, itcreates 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 onlywhat’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 theproblem with the last couple of decades is that we have been separating land use from transportationdecision-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 600land-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 aredeveloped by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This is static and incremental, and onlyfocuses on a small part of the puzzle, but this is how we estimate transportation demand. We generallydo not use trip generation to examine how transportation is affected by region-wide changes in landuse, 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 abetter 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. Butaround New York State this is no longer the case and these state and regional agencies have really cometo the understanding that they can’t do that anymore – they’re told they can’t by vocal opposition andby limited funds. They are really taking this to heart and bringing much more sophisticated planninganalyses 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 allthe alternatives and ideas that have developed during the public outreach and visioning process. Andmodeling is a tool that helps us do that. And as a lot of people have pointed out, it is just a tool thatallows 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 studiesare Operational and Travel Demand. Operational models basically analyze how much traffic load can beprocessed by the transportation system. In its simplest form, it measures volume and compares it tocapacity, 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.

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 onaccurate and up-to-date land-use forecasts. Those land-uses are then used to generate trips, distributethem 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 isfurther 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 – theTowns 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 arecent doubling of prices. Metro North is the main provider of rail service to the area.

11

Annual Daily Traffic Volumes, NYS RT 27.

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 largerrate 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 reallyhave 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 ofscenario combinations (see the inside back cover). Each pair of combinations is put into this “blackbox” called the model, and then out come these evaluation parameters – such as amount of milestraveled, and air quality.

After evaluating these parameters like pollutant loads and we can take that information and refinethe 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 existingtransportation 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 complexmathematical functions that people much smarter than myself run and that’s James Kahng. The modelbreaks down the study area into TAZs, Transportation Analysis Zones. So these are manageable packetsof area where you can store and manipulate data and they essentially correspond to the census blockgroups so the data from the census can be imported into the model. So, you define your TAZs, and eachTAZ – 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 ofoffice 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, andoverall 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 inthe future, the model will then divert them around to the local roadways. So then you get an overallpicture 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 andtransit links, demographic information of the residents so that it can tabulate trips by use – the inboundwork trips, outbound commercial trips, recreational trips, etc. The other thing that happens is to takeall 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 ofthis TAZ in the news – TAZ-2469 in the Town of East Hampton. That’s just the location of the TAZ inEast Hampton. You start, like you do in every model, with existing conditions. You have park areas, theexisting commercial districts, and then the residential district. And trips are generated from those areasusing the trip generation rates or other equations for the different types of land use. Then what we do ischange the way land is used, based on the SEEDS land use scenarios (see Table 1). If development inconcentrated around a village center, which is one of the scenarios in this project, the model willcalculate 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 choicebehavior 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 houreveryday, rain or shine, to others who would never get out of their car totake public transportation. Others suggested that if we could provide good,nice, reliable public transportation, they might consider using them. Traveldemand modeling can consider and incorporate various opinions that reflectchoice behaviors.

I’d like to emphasize that the Long Island Transportation Plan (LITP) Travel Demand Model that is thebasis for the SEEDS study (as well as for the Nassau Hub), is developed to be an objective planningtool. It is objective in the sense that it gives equal footing to both the highway and other transitoptions. They share the same Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) system structure. (TAZs are smallgeographic areas used in transportation planning to summarize demographic characteristics and traveldata.) The computer model treats highway and transit options on an equal basis. They are designed tocompete with each other – to see which one is going to win or be more effective. Instead of assumingthat everyone would take this mode or that mode of transportation, the model actually calculates theprobability of a particular person or particular TAZ using a given mode. For instance, for a particularTAZ, it may be projected that 20% of the travelers use transit, 70% may decide to drive solo, and 5%may decide to walk, etc.

13

Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes NYS RT 25 and RT 27.

3800036000340003200030000280002600024000220002000018000160001400012000100008000600040002000

0

NYS Rt 25

NYS Rt 27

Num

ber

of

Vehi

cles

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Month

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, toshop, to go to a restaurant or social gathering and so on. Therefore, socioeconomic forecasts are veryimportant component of modeling. Zonal socioeconomic data includes households, employment, andtypes of employment. It’s not sufficient just to see how many of them are there, but also how they aredistributed over a given geographic area. It could make a difference if there are 10,000 employees spreadover 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 frompoint A to point B.

The “supply side,” the levels-of-service of the transportation system, also influences the choices wemake as well. Transportation supply includes the frequency and capacity of train and bus service, roadcapacity, and other issues related to transportation infrastructure.

While this particular model is designed primarily to provide detailed forecast of travel within LongIsland, it also recognizes that a significant number of people, but not the majority in any sense, docommute to areas outside of Long Island, particularly Manhattan. In order to present an accuraterepresentation of these various and diverse travel characteristics, the five boroughs of New York Cityare also represented in the model. This model is very comprehensive, with more than 3,200 TAZs. Inmost 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 Blockgeography since a census tract in the East End generally encompasses too large an area to serve as asingle TAZ.

The model transportation network contains over 33,000 highway links, including county roads andstate highways, and more than 67,000 transit links, including access and egress links. Actually, thetransit model network includes more links than the highway network, and represents buses, commuterrail (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 timeperiod choice, and network assignment. For each TAZ we estimate trip generation and trip destinationquantities. The purpose of the model is to calculate these trip quantities and then determine the mostlikely modes, times, and paths of travel.

Trip generation tries to capture important factors such as trip purpose – because depending on whattype of trip you make, your trip making choice behavior may differ. You don’t go shopping at eighto’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 thisinventory 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 numberof trips per employee. Other factors that influence travelers’ trip making decisions include how long ittakes, 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 andservice performance, out-of-pocket costs such as fares, gasoline, and maintenance. Also, the modechoice is affected by what type of land-use prevails at the trip destination. For instance, Manhattan isvery 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 maybe 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 suchas drivers traveling alone, drivers sharing a ride, or people taking transit in the form of commuter railwith a fixed schedule, local and express buses or ferries. The model even considers non-motorizedoptions like walking.

In order for the model to be a useful tool to the SEEDS project, we developed a more detailed TAZsystem and highway and transit network on the East End. As part of the SEEDS study, various land usescenarios have evolved (See Table 1). Each scenario will generate different simulated transportationdemand 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 BogaczChief Planner, NYMTC

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

County Executive Levy is a member of NYMTC as well as is the New York State DOT. Basically, thefederal government asked metropolitan regions to come together and plan for and institute how to usefederal 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 transportationa little more closely than had previously been the case. And in parts of the region, originally, land useand transportation had been very close but over the last several decades, they had drifted farther andfarther apart, a function of the fact that transportation is largely defined regionally, and land usedecisions are local.

We can’t understand the root problems of transportation congestion without discussing thedisassociation of land use planning and transportation planning – which can lead to situations whereland is consumed, transportation capacity is consumed or distorted, and energy’s consumed. Andbringing 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 fortransportation decisions, local municipalities who’re responsible for local land use decisions, and localresidents and businesses to develop a planning consensus for land use and transportation. When thatconsensus is reached, we can then use the folks who are at the table to implement the preferred landuse and the transportation alternatives.

Starting this was a challenge. There’s no question it’s experimental. And we do not know, and did notknow how this approach might work in real obligations. So, four pilot studies were identifiedthroughout the region. They were identified through our regional transportation plan that we must filewith the federal government and also identified through regional planning efforts like LITP. One ofthem was the Sustainable East End Development Strategies initiative, or SEEDS. The others were inWestchester County and Rockland County in the Hudson Valley, and there’s one in progress right nowin 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, butrather need to go forward into the implementation process. There needs to be a focus for as long as ittakes to implement. Some implementation is short term and can be done rapidly. Other projects aremore extensive and require longer lead times, like County Route 39 in Southampton. Implementationis 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 workingtogether on the East End. I don’t think you could take justfourteen municipalities and say, “work together.” I think therehas to be a history and culture of working together.

SEEDS was started in April 2001. It started with extensivecommunity visioning in both land use and transportationfutures. The land use and transportation scenarios did notcome out of my head or the head of any particular individual –it came out of everyone’s head. It’s a grassroots process; acompilation of what we heard. Compiling the scenarios wascontroversial and we had to work through several particularsticking points to get the scenarios that everyone could livewith. But like everything else in this process, the scenariosrepresent a consensus of everyone’s input.

One of the reasons it’s taken three years is because consensus building is a lengthy process. The moreplayers there are, the more actors are involved, the more time consuming it is to build consensus. But itis possible to do with patience. Workshops were held in 2001 and 2002 to try to get the broadestcollection of needs and potential solutions.

Our next step is to use a computer simulation model to test these scenarios. The model is a tool; themodel 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 atool; you’re basically playing – for those who know it – SimCity with the East End. You’re testingvarious 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 IslandRail Road service in a significant way? We will test that. We’re going to test a crossing between LongIsland 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 willexplain 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 transportationand land use to evolve from where we are today? It will be complicated. The computer generates a lotof information. We’re working hard with the study committee to identify [performance] measures thatcan summarize these results so that you can better understand them and we can better understandthem. 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 oneanother. And that’s the ultimate objective. And then the people who are at the table can get to workon implementation.

17

The model is a tool; the model does not makethe decision. The peoplein this room – electedofficials, transportationplanners, businessmen,and citizens – make the decisions.

One final observation – it’s really important that the municipal officials and the municipal boardsbecome 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 – electedofficials, elected board members – to pay attention and get involved. We have a very dedicated set ofstakeholders who are involved here -they have been slogging through this for months and months andare to be commended. They are the face and the representatives of the East End – both the residentsand 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 itsinfrastructure and safety improvements. To the adage, “Build it and they will come,” we can addanother: “Don’t build it, and they still will come.”

The Long Island Transportation Plan to manage congestion was confronted by then-StateTransportation Commissioner White with a perplexing problem: how to justify the need for additionalcapacity on a two-mile stretch of the Northern State Parkway between the Meadowbrook and WantaghParkways. The Commissioner was concerned that we had not looked at a transit solution to solve thecongestion problem there.

Planners realize that you can’t solve a congestion problem on a two-mile stretch of parkway with atransit solution without looking at a much bigger picture. You have to, in fact, look at all of Long Islandbecause people travel from everywhere and they go to everywhere. You have to figure out what type ofpublic transportation makes the most sense for a suburban sprawl environment such as Long Island. Forthe first time the realization that we needed to develop a comprehensive, multi-modal plan for all ofNassau 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 wasbroadcast on Channel 21. One hundred twenty thousand people watched that show and we received1,000 telephone calls. Some were questions that we answered on air. Most were comments orsuggestions for transportation improvements. We catalogued all those questions and comments and putthem 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 formedsubcommittees 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 teamfiltered through all the ideas to come up with recommendations for improvements that make sense forLong Island.

The Technical Advisory Committee, which was formed just before the TV show, was comprised of 40individuals representing 34 or so different agencies, municipal governments, other interests, and 6members of the general public. The Technical Advisory Committee discussed various proposals and theconsultant team’s analyses, and then would vote – majority rules. The study team developedrecommendations based on the Technical Advisory Committee’s direction. That was the way the studyprocess 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 entiretransportation 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 subwaysystem. 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 begoing to, and what modes of travel they’re likely to use. Using that model, we not only forecast futureconditions on the current transportation network, but we can also alter the network in the model – addmore trains, tracks, highway lanes, HOV lanes, and buses – whatever it was we were going to test fromall of the different proposals that came to us from the people. We could then see which proposals wouldwork best at managing future congestion.

We asked questions: “Would this solution reduce congestion?” “Would it improve air quality?” “Wouldit improve safety?” A whole host of performance measures were used to evaluate the alternatives. Aftera lengthy technical evaluation process, in 2001 the Technical Advisory Committee voted to advance apreferred plan. After four years we had whittled all the different ideas down to a manageable numberbased on what the technical modeling informed us would work best, and we connected all the piecesinto a cohesive plan for Long Island.

The Technical Advisory Committee thendirected the study team to go public – to talkwith the people about the preferred plan. Aseries of public forums were held across LongIsland, which included a public informationbooth at the Smith Haven Mall. At these forumspeople were given the opportunity to watch avideo describing the study process and therecommendations, and they were encouraged toask questions and make comments one-on-onewith the consultant team. We also asked peopleto fill out a survey form about how they feltabout the options and to make written comments. Overall, more than 1,500 people participated in thispart 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 publicforums, includes a proposal for a new rapid transit system for Long Island. The Long Island RapidTransit System would focus on serving travel within Long Island, where most Long Islanders start andend trips. (It is a misperception that most Long Islanders go to New York City every day. Only 11% ofLong Island commuters go into Manhattan.)

The challenge to developing new transit solutions for Long Island is to provide a fast, reliable, moderntransit system to get people where they want to go within Long Island without using their cars. Theproposed Long Island Rapid Transit system would complement the service provided by the Long IslandRail Road, the busiest commuter railroad in the country, which is focused on getting people intoManhattan. The proposed system involves modern over-the-road transit vehicles that would travel onnew priority lanes (HOV) – with priority given to transit vehicles – along portions of theMeadowbrook, Southern State and Sagtikos Parkways so that the transit vehicles would travel fasterproviding users of the new system with a time savings advantage over driving alone.

19

The challenge to developing newtransit solutions for Long Island isto provide a fast, reliable, moderntransit system to get people wherethey want to go within Long Islandwithout using their cars.

We also learned through the technical evaluations that there is no one modal solution that will solvethe congestion problem. The unbiased technical modeling informed us that we also needed to balanceselect highway improvements with the transit proposals. The recommendations in the preferred planinclude 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 AdvisoryCommittee asked the study team to develop animplementation strategy. The strategy lays outhow the recommendations can be implementedbetween now and the year 2025.

We are on target to release a draft plan andimplementation strategy in the fall of 2004 andto finalize the plan in the spring of 2005 afteradditional public comments are reviewed and appropriately addressed. The implementation ofindividual projects identified in the plan would then move to individual Environmental Impact Studiesduring which more public involvement about project details will be sought.

Mitch Pally, Vice PresidentThe 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 theEast End by the lack of affordable housing. If everybody lived where they worked, we’d get rid ofa lot of transportation problems.

2. There are transportation solutions to every transportation problem. But are there politicallyacceptable solutions?

3. Mass transit for most people on Long Island means that there are two people in the car and theycan use the HOV lane. That’s mass transit. It’s not getting on the railroad. Most people wouldnot 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 – whichmeans, 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 morefederal and state money to buy the bus than anything else – it’s the issue of operating costs. Ifyou put 50 people on the bus, the County and State lose money times 50. Somebody has tomake that money up. In the past, we have relied on a variety of ways to do that, includingproperty taxes. Obviously, Suffolk County subsidized the bus system. Every time you pay yourtelephone bill or buy something in a store you pay a MTA tax. Every time you go over theThrogs Neck Bridge, 75% of the money goes to subsidize mass transit.

20

Mass transit for most people onLong Island means that there aretwo people in the car and they canuse the HOV lane.

At the Long Island Association, we’ve come up with what we believe are the five most importanttransportation projects on Long Island. Unfortunately, because of density issues, none of the fiveprojects are on the East End. They’re something that would help the East End. But they’re not on theEast End.

1. East Side access for the LIRR will substantially increase the opportunity to move people notonly to New York City, but from New York City to work places on Long Island. 20% of the workforce on Long Island lives in NYC and most commute by car. We want to give them theopportunity to take the railroad.

2. The cross-harbor freight tunnel between Brooklyn and Long Island. 97% of all the freight thatcomes on and off of Long Island comes by truck. That is 20% higher than any other region inthe Country. Why? Because the train tracks stop in New Jersey. To get to Long Island by trainyou’ve got to cross the Hudson River in Poughkeepsie and then come down to Long Island. Italso means building a multimodal facility at Pilgrim State to let the trains get there and then usetrucks to get the freight from there to their final destination. That is a very expensive but veryimportant project.

3. We need a third track on the LIRR – from Bellrose to Hicksville. That is probably the mostimportant transportation project on Long Island. It’s only been studied for the last 30 years. Itwill allow the railroad to: increase its freight operation, increase its operation on the Oyster Bayline, 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, withthe new coliseum and new convention center?

5. Route 347 has become the granddaddy of bad transportation in Suffolk County. It’s been lookedat for 45 years, and it will be looked at for another 5-10 years. The problem with Route 347, likeRoute 39, is that if the main route does not work, people will find alternatives. It’s not that thetraffic goes away. People find alternatives. Where do they find them? They find them on thelocal 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 thenext 10 years? And I hope we’re not here 10 years from now trying to figure out why CountyRoute 39 did not get done. And that should be one of the focal points – not just the planningprocess, but being able to engage the implementation process.

Lisa Tyson, Director Long Island Progressive Coalition

To discuss the idea of a new multimodal systemfor Long Island, we have to incorporate togetheraffordable housing, workforce housing, land useand transportation, and energy and theenvironment. How do we do that? Let’s replaceLIRR cars with light rail vehicles, which runmore frequently. Rather than having a road-widening project there could be a public train project. Let’sbuild a light rail system. Let the system become that. Let the workers come on a light rail system todowntowns and have a multi-modal system – with little “jitneys” for getting around.

21

Let’s replace LIRR cars with light rail vehicles, which run more frequently.

The Long Island Association and the Progressive Coalition have a lot in common such as wantingeast side access, which is certainly a priority for Long Island. The cross-harbor freight tunnel is also apriority. The third track for the LIRR must be built. The Nassau Hub is a good project. Their modelingprocess is looking at transit-oriented development and incorporating land use. The question being askedis not “what do we have today?” It is “what are we going to have tomorrow?” We’re going to beredeveloping 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 theroad, and then there’s enough induced congestion so that you have to widen another lane. One of theways to deal with that was for the DOT to build HOV lanes. The idea of HOV lanes came out of theClean 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 increasecongestion, forcing some people into public transit.Instead, we built another lane, but we didn’t build apublic transit system. Right now is the time for LongIsland to build a public transit system. We’re going to be here a long time. People say, “You’re talking 20 yearsdown the line. Will we have the density for that?” Wewill eventually have the density. If we focus developmenton our downtown centers and our hamlets we can keepnatural areas open.

We need to determine the carrying capacity on the East End. How much can it hold? We can heightendevelopment in some areas, and leave other areas alone. Citizens have to be there at the table in theplanning and decision-making process – not just to be given a laundry list of ideas. We really hope theSustainable 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 thingthat 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 talkingabout 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 RapidCommute vehicle with rubber tires. But it is hard to get people on a bus. Also, priority lanes arewidening lanes – new lanes and the amount of time it would take to do this construction is not factoredinto the study. They know how much it’s going to take. But when you look at the end result, how muchtime 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 havethe LIRR, which is an amazing railroad. It is the largest commuter railroad in the Country. So whydon’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 LongIslanders. If you’re in your car, you’re going to continue your ride. Our Rethink LITP2000 Coalition ismade of a coalition of over 85 organizations opposed to the DOT’s plan. That LITP2000 has a hugeprice 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

You just can’t widen roadsanymore. It doesn’t work. It’s called induced demand.

We think it’s important that the SEEDS process keeps the community in the planning process. Thecitizens 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 toreduce auto transit and congestion as well

23

Section 5:NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

US Congressman Tim BishopNew York’s First District

To discuss transportation from a federal perspective, one needs to know what is happening in Washingtonright now. Congress is considering the reauthorization of TEA-21, the overall surface transportation bill for thefederal government.

One issue being considered in this bill that’s incrediblyimportant for New York is the share of gasoline taxrevenue that New York receives. Gasoline tax revenue isdeposited in a national Highway Trust Fund and eachstate 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 payinto the trust fund. We have made an enormous investment here in New York in mass transit, and needto maintain current funding levels to continue our commitment to providing everyone with transportationoptions. The investment in mass transit makes sense from numerous perspectives, not the least of whichis from an environmental standpoint.

A coalition of donor states, those that receive a relatively low return for their gas tax investment, ledby Texas Congressman Tom DeLay, developed a new and unfair proposal. Our state and other similarlysituated states created the Fair Alliance for Intermodal Reinvestment (FAIR) Coalition, which remainsan active bipartisan group of the states that would be harmed by altering payments to the HighwayTrust Fund. The donor state initiative would guarantee each state gets back 95% of funds paid into theHighway Trust Fund. If this proposal were to be adopted, New York will take it on the chin. Our statemay lose a couple of hundred million dollars during the six years of the highway bill if the DeLayproposal goes through, which is why the New York delegation on the Committee is working closelyacross 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 dealwith the threat of a presidential veto. The President has not vetoed a single bill since he took the oathof office. Now he’s faced with a $520 billion deficit this year (2004) and an estimated deficit that couldbe higher than $370 billion next year, therefore the President has indicated a willingness to toe the lineon spending beginning with the transportation bill. Those deficit projections don’t include a dime forour continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after September 30th of this year. I don’t thinkthere’s a soul alive who thinks we’ll have no presence in Iraq and Afghanistan come late Septemberand our ongoing presence in these countries will require at least an extra $50 billion. That will result ina deficit in fiscal ‘05 of at least $420 billion. So with that as context, the President has threatened toveto 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 somethingthat would be in the neighborhood of $290 billion over six years. Then we’ll go to conference with theSenate and hopefully be able to build the number up closer to what the Senate adopted and then seewhat 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 infrastructurebill and it is a jobs bill. With the job situation in our country being what it is, I don’t think thePresident 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 anenormous potential to jump-start the economy. This kind of investment could help to grow theemployment rate that we’ve all been talking about being stagnant during this jobless recovery. So, Ithink the President will face significant pressure to avoid a veto.

A major reason reauthorizing the transportation bill isimportant is because it’s estimated that 32% of ournation’s roads are now substandard and 48% of bridgesare substandard. Estimates also put congestion costs at$67 billion a year due to the time we spend in our carsthat we could all be doing something more productive.And we expend about 6 billion gallons of gasoline ayear simply because of the time we spend idling intraffic. These are all reasons why I believe a nationalinvestment in transportation is a wise use ofgovernment resources.

Let me talk a little bit about New York. Thetransportation bill will hopefully include three major projects that are important and beneficial withrespect to traffic in our region. One is the Second Avenue subway. The second project is East SideAccess; a Long Island Rail Road project slated to be completed by 2012. We have asked for $900million for that project. Congress is also seeking funding for the third track of the Long Island RailRoad 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 thinkthat the job creation aspect is so compelling that in the final analysis the President will recognize theneed 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 thenear future.

25

32% of our nation’s roads arenow substandard and 48% of bridges are substandard.…national investment intransportation is a wise use of government resources.

Section 6:LOCAL VOICES

Robert DeLuca, President3

Group for the South Fork

Traffic assessment figures recently released by the Town of Southampton in the May 2004 TransportationElement of it’s Comprehensive Plan confirm what has been understood by anyone driving the trafficgauntlet from the Shinnecock Canal to points East for some time. In short, traffic is horrendous andgetting worse just about every year.

Southampton’s figures reveal a rate of trafficgrowth on County Road 39 (North Road) ofapproximately 40% during the last 18 years.Notably average daily volume has grown about30% more rapidly than peak season volumes,which experienced a more modest, 27% increaseduring the same 18-year period.

Today, on an average summer day, some 38,000 vehicles cross the Shinnecock Canal. In July andAugust 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 thecategory of two-axle, four-wheel vehicle (cars, vans and light trucks).

Although much of the recentincrease in volume has beenattributed to the last decades’boom in new construction, volumeis unlikely to subside any timesoon. In fact, much of the sameconstruction that spawned the

now infamous morning “trade parade”, will in all likelihood, require long-term commitments tomaintenance, landscaping, property management and remodeling that will keep construction andservice-related traffic volume robust for the years ahead. At the same time, Southampton’s 21% growthin population has increased traffic from other sectors including government, education, retail and othernon-trade related employment activities.

For years, scientific and anecdotal assessment about the region’s overburdened roadways and theimplications 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 touchesevery 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 todetermine if there was indeed some common ground that we could work to achieve. Working on thetheory that sometime things have to get incomprehensibly bad before real change can occur, I havemade the assumption that there may indeed be a bright lining to the nearly apocalyptic trafficcongestion that this year’s US Open will bring down upon the region.

26

… traffic is horrendous and gettingworse just about every year.

… on an average summer day, some38,000 vehicles cross the Shinnecock Canal.

3Originally 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.

In short order, I quickly found a theme that rises over and over again in the assessment andrecommendations 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 sitsstuck in their car on County Road 39 look out at the wide open track that lies dormant alongside theroadway, has contemplated improved rail service.

What most folks have agreed upon over the years is that regular shuttle service between Westhamptonand Montauk, could make a tremendous difference by getting people out of their car and getting themto the areas historic hamlets, villages and business centers where the vast majority of non-tradecommerce 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 andabsolve itself of the real need to provide local inter-hamlet transit options. Ironically, the LIRR hasmoved in the opposite direction with its program of station closures, including the same one they hadto 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 couldwell be what we need to reopen a discussion of inter-hamlet train shuttles. To move LIRR, it will takemajor pressure and strong leadership from our elected officials. Fortunately, the region’s elected officialshave to sit in the same traffic the rest of us do and for the most part have already been supportive ofthis 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 enjoyedthroughout the region. We can’t hope to fix it all, but with your help we can make a substantialdifference in improving our transportation infrastructure that remains consistent with our commitmentto protecting the local environment and maintaining rural character.

I hope you will choose to help.

27

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Contact:

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 efforton 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 ofthe 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 weare to avoid the further expansion of highways, traffic lights and additional urbanizing growth that hasdiminished the quality of life and environment in so many other areas.

28

US Congressman Tim BishopC/o Ms. Jane Finalborgo33 Flying Point RoadSuite 119Southampton, New York 11968Fax: 631-696-4520

US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton C/o Ms. Resi Cooper155 Pinelawn RoadSuite 250 NorthMelville, New York 11747Fax: 631-249-2825NYS Senator Ken Lavalle

325 Middle Country RoadSuite #4Selden, New York 11784Fax: 631-696-2307

NYS Assemblyman Fred Thiele2302 Main StreetP.O. Box 2302Bridgehampton, New York 11932FAX: 631-537-2836

Hank de Cillia4

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 ofthem are not made locally. Instead, they are made in Hauppauge, New York City and Albany. We mayget 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 theLong Island Rail Road (LIRR) and the Suffolk County Transit System (SCTS). However, theseorganizations have charters that mainly focus outside our region. The LIRR is the nation’s largestcommuter railroad, providing service to several million people who travel to and from western Suffolkand Nassau Counties into New York City every workday. The SCTS provides bus service to the nearlyone 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 andSouthold- are a significantly different environment that is not currently well served by the LIRR andSCTS. While it is understandable that the bulk of their budget dollars go to western Long Island, theunique 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 andvisitors. This is levied in the form of mortgage and sales tax, and some revenues go to the LIRR andSCTS respectively. These monies far exceed the cost of public transportation services we actuallyreceive, 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 landmass. While western Suffolk has an urban/suburban population density of over 2,300 people per squaremile, the East End’s rural population density is less than 400 people per square mile. (The Federalgovernment, by the way, now classifies areas as either ‘urbanized’ or ‘non-urbanized ‘for fundingpurposes, 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 arevastly different from those of the west. Furthermore, we can’t solve our East End traffic problems just bybuilding roads. More roads will only invite more vehicles and make our traffic problems even worse. Weneed 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 useswhat little service we have. We should start with the idea that few people have a car, and/or they donot need one at their destination. How do we get people to where they need or want to goconveniently and reliably?

29

4Mr. 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.

30

The East End needs a rural transit network, consisting of regularly scheduled shuttle trains, buses, andferries 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 servicesspecifically 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) wouldaugment, not replace, use ofpersonal vehicles. If the publicmade use of the service only 15-20% of the time, we couldsignificantly reduce our presentroad congestion and be betterprepared for future sustainablegrowth. (A 2003 survey of over900 workers that commute to work in the Town of Southampton revealed that 30-35% of theresponders would make daily use of an affordable rail/bus commuter service.) So, even if you don’tpersonally see yourself using EETran, you would still benefit by having fewer cars and trucks on ourroads 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 passengerswould transfer to small-scale shuttle trains (length determined by ridership) for the remainder of theirtrip east. On the North Fork, the LIRR commuter trains would terminate at Ronkonkoma (or better atCalverton if it is developed as an intermodal transit hub). North Fork passengers would also transfer toshuttle 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, atSpeonk 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 linecould 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 beestablished between all rail stations and the closest East End hamlets, villages and other major touristand recreational destinations on the North and South Forks. They would also run a 30 minute schedulein 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 CrossSound Ferry at Orient Point on the North Fork and the Villages of Sag Harbor, Southampton and EastHampton on the South Fork.

The East End needs a rural transit network,consisting of regularly scheduled shuttletrains, buses, and ferries that can move fivedistinct user groups …

Depending on rider ship and route layouts, buses could operate on regular schedules and/or using a “hailbus” 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 thedevelopment 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 andEast 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 secondhomeowners 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 waterborneservices. 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 OrientPoint 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 todaily 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 upmaterials 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 oreliminate any negative environmental impact. All vehicles would have similar aesthetics and graphicsto 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 transfersbetween modes of travel (rail, bus, ferry). Ticket fees would be subsidized by government publictransportation grants to encourage usage, at leastin the initial years of operation. Of course, itwould be necessary to heavily promote East EndTransit to develop ridership in the early years,through all local and regional media outlets …print, radio, television...and the Internet. Abrochure with map would also clearly identifyEETran routes and schedules.

No large scale construction projects would berequired to establish East End Transit, other than the rehabilitation of some rail siding, the installationof 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 conceivableEETran could be operational within two to three years of approval. In contrast, the proposed expansionof CR39 in the Town of Southampton (just a 5.7 mile stretch of road) could not be completed for sixyears from approval, according to the Suffolk County DP.

31

Ticket fees would be subsidized bygovernment public transportationgrants to encourage usage, at leastin the initial years of operation.

Further, the cost of acquiring new equipment and developing/operating East End Rural Transit could belargely borne by Federal and State Public Transportation Grants and Subsidized Passenger Fees. No newTown 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 ownedand/or operated by the same entity, either a public agency or perhaps even a private corporation. Theformation of an East End Transportation Authority by the five East End Towns and the incorporatedVillages would be a logical first step to provide oversight for developing and operating this regionalrural public transportation network. An alternative approach would be to create a consortium of EastEnd transportation companies (LIRR, Suffolk County Transit, Sunrise Bus, Hampton Jitney, CrossSound Ferry, North Ferry and South Ferry) that provides a comprehensive transportation network tomake much automobile transportation unnecessary.

The timing may be perfect right now for this type of discussion to take place. The East EndTransportation Council, made up of representatives from all East End Towns and Villages, as well asCounty, State and Federal transportation agencies, has a major project underway to deal with both landuse (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 in2005. 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.

Scott Carlin and David Sprintzen5

Institute for Sustainable Development

While local traffic congestion won’t be solved anytimesoon, for a modest cost we should develop acomprehensive online data retrieval system focused on thetransportation needs of the five eastern towns of SuffolkCounty: East Hampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island,Southampton, and Southold. This Peconic Transit Serverwill 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 costeffective and most expedient regional alternative for enhancing regional mobility.

Information is critical to transportation. Stoplights, maps, and departure schedules are just a few of theinformation services essential to the transportation sector. To date, the Internet remains anunderutilized resource in this sector, particularly as it relates to inter-modal transit. Large transitproviders, like Amtrak and commercial airlines, have developed integrated web sites for theircustomers. There are few examples, however, of inter-modal regional transportation Internet servers,particularly ones that promote long-term sustainable regional development.

32

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

we should develop acomprehensive online dataretrieval system …

The region has an immediate need for this technology. While congestion is a major problem for easternLong Island, regional support for preserving local, natural and cultural resources has made it verydifficult for government agencies to successfully expand the area’s transportation infrastructures. Localresidents have blocked bicycle lanes, ferries, and road expansions in recent years. Despite very seriousroad congestion problems, the public has not supported demand management strategies, such as roadpricing and HOV lanes.

This project will provide transportation planners with a new technology for identifying service gaps inthe existing transportation system and can become a valuable information tool for improvingtransportation planning and making decisions on future improvements in transportation services.

An internet site could provide information on bicycle routes (maps); public bus schedules; privatejitney services; LIRR services; regional and local ferry services; information on other transportationproviders (car rental services, taxis, etc.); regularly updated highway congestion, like INFORM; andscheduled construction projects.

The internet service would integrate this information, so users can understand what alternative transitservices are available to connect them from their point of departure to their destination. The servicewill emphasize connectivity to and from regional and local centers (governmental, commercial, andtransportation). The system will allow users to view transit information in text, tabular, and geographicformats. For example, directions and inter-modal connections can be displayed as a map or text. Transitschedules will be viewed in easy-to-read tables.

Over time, this web site could also develop an online library of contemporary regional transportationplanning documents. In addition to planning documents, the system could provide information ontransportation assessments by transit users and transportation professionals. Since 1987, the Long IslandRail Road Commuters Council has surveyed riders and developed a “report card” assessing the LIRR’seffectiveness. This methodology, however, has not been replicated for other components of the regionaltransportation system.

As usage of the system builds, the system will have the capability to allow registered users to participatein 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 theconference presentations and our ongoing analysis of regional transportation needs:

❈ The most important improvement the region canmake is to expand usage of the Long Island Railroadcorridors, which are poorly utilized (see page 45). Theexisting LIRR cars are designed for travel to and fromManhattan. The corridor could function moreefficiently as a regional light rail or trolley service withmore frequent stops. The SEEDS process shouldexamine what level of land use density would allowtransit services, like light rail, to function efficiently.

❈ Assemblyman Fred Thiele has proposed the creationof a regional transit authority; this may be the mosteffective way forward for improving usage of the LIRRcorridor and merits further study.

❈ Land use policies on the East End continue to encourage large lot sprawl. These policies areharmful 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 landand “open space.”

❈ The S92 bus service is inadequate and poorly coordinated with ferry and rail service. SuffolkCounty 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 duringcommuting hours.) During the summer months, local bus services should run more frequentlyand schedules should be better publicized. (Citizens’ groups need to do a better job ofcoordinating their lobbying efforts towards these goals. Transit agencies and local electedofficials 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 theSEEDS study will provide some empirical data on the effects of expanding shuttle services. Their analysis merits close attention.

❈ We propose that a regional Internet transitwebsite, the Peconic Transit Server, beestablished. It would provide information on:highway congestion and optimal travel times;construction schedules; and schedulinginformation on bus, rail, and ferry services.

❈ In recent years bike lanes have become moreprominent on local roads. These shouldcontinue to be expanded into a regionally coherent network. Suffolk County should establishmaps and other resources to promote usage of this system.

34

The most importantimprovement the regioncan make is to expandusage of the Long IslandRailroad corridors, whichare poorly utilized

Transit agencies should considerexpanding the usage of shuttlebuses throughout the region.

❈ 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 Greenportto Sag Harbor. Ferry service from Connecticut to Riverhead or west of Riverhead wouldalleviate some summer congestion on the North Fork. This option merits further attention andshould 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 thelargest geographic region to work with NYMTC using the SEEDS process. The East End’s variouscommunities pose many unique and challenging problems to transportation planners. Crafting effectiveand consensus-based solutions will require balancing local and regional perspectives and balancing theneed for patience (consensus is slow process) with the need for expediency (we can’t wait for theperfect solution and budget realities cannot be neglected). Ultimately the real challenge will beensuring 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

AKRFhttp://www.akrf.com/

Bike Plan Transportationwww.bikeplan.com

Center for Excellence for SustainableDevelopment, Dept of Energywww.sustainable.doe.gov

Long Island Associationhttp://www.longislandassociation.org/

Long Island Progressive Coalitionhttp://www.lipc.org/

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Planhttp://www.nymtc.org/waterborne_plan/index.htm

Long Island Sound Ferry Coalitionhttp://www.nymtc.org/ferry_site/

Long Island Rail Roadwww.mta.nyc.ny.us/LIRR/index.html

Long Island Transportation Plan 2000www.litp2000.com

New York Metropolitan Transportation Councilhttp://www.nymtc.org

NYMTC Regional Transportation Plan http://www.nymtc.org/plan.html

New York State Department ofTransportationwww.dot.state.ny.us

Parsons Brinckerhoffhttp://www.pbworld.com/

Peconic Community Councilhttp://www.pccouncil.org/

Route 303 Corridor Sustainable Development Studywww.co.rockland.ny.us/planning/landuse/303Survey.htm

Suffolk County Planning Depthttp://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/planning/

SEEDS:Sustainable East End Development Strategieshttp://www.seedsproject.com/

Sustainable Long Islandwww.sustainableli.org

Town of East Hamptonhttp://www.town.east-hampton.ny.us/

Town of Riverheadhttp://www.riverheadli.com/

Town of Shelter Islandhttp://www.shelterislandtown.us/

Town of Southamptonhttp://www.town.southampton.ny.us/

Town of Southoldhttp://southoldtown.northfork.net/

Transportation Alternatives, New York Citywww.transalt.com

Tri-state Transportation Campaignwww.tstc.org

Walkable Communitieswww.walkable.org

36

Section 8APPENDICES

A. Related Internet Links

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 CharacteristicsTown of East Hampton PopulationPopulation & Density 1990 2000 Change Percent ChangeTotal 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 acresSources: US Census, 1990 and 2000; Suffolk County Dept. of Planning, July 2000.Edited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies

Town of Riverhead PopulationPopulation & Density 1990 2000 Change Percent ChangeTotal 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: 43,297acresSources: 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 PopulationPopulation & Density 1990 2000 Change Percent ChangeTotal 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: 7,247acresSources: US Census, 1990 and 2000; Suffolk County Dept. of Planning, July 2000.Edited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies

Town of Southampton PopulationPopulation & Density 1990 2000 Change Percent ChangeTotal 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 CountyPlanning Department, “Estimated Peak Seasonal Population, 2000, Suffolk County, New York,” adjusted upward to takeaccount of the 2,250 undercount in total housing units, and assuming, conservatively, that 50% of the new houses builtbetween 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 PopulationPopulation & Density 1990 2000 Change Percent ChangeTotal 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: 34,767acresSources: 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

41

2000 Projected Units

Town 1990 2000 Seasonal Units at SaturationEast Hampton 17,068 19,640 10,693 27,270

Riverhead 10,801 12,478 1,165 26,240

Shelter Island 2,148 2,370 1,307 4,166Southampton 33,795 38,280 15,202 52,285Southold 12,979 13,769 4,689 21,831East End Total 76,791 86,538 33,056 131,792

Town 1990 2000 At Saturation

East Hampton 16,132 19,719 27,099Riverhead 23,011 27,680 60,361

Shelter Island 2,263 2,228 2,511Southampton 45,351 55,216 73,743Southold 19,836 20,599 30,852

East End Total 106,593 124,442 194,566

Town 1990 2000 At SaturationEast Hampton 53,386 71,906 97,383Riverhead 12,825 12,784 28,051Shelter Island 5,519 6,889 13,167Southampton 84,932 100,887 141,108

Southold 25,503 28,005 47,202East End Total 182,164 220,472 319,711

Year-Round Population

Summer Population

Total

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

Total and Seasonal Housing Units

Ta

ble

3:

La

nd

Use

Ac

rea

ge

by T

ow

n f

or

Ea

ste

rn S

uff

olk

Co

un

ty,

199

9

42

Low

dens

ity re

side

ntia

l2,

094

5%5,

566

16%

1,81

025

%15

,194

17%

7,95

317

%32

,617

15%

Med

ium

den

sity

resi

dent

ial3,

187

7%4,

300

12%

837

12%

10,9

3512

%5,

768

12%

25,0

2711

%H

igh d

ensit

y re

side

ntia

l76

12%

236

1%14

0%58

01%

405

1%1,

996

1%C

omm

ercia

l99

92%

654

2%14

62%

2,18

23%

619

1%4,

600

2%In

dust

rial

3,66

19%

149

0%12

0%78

91%

266

1%4,

877

2%In

stitu

tiona

l61

81%

1,24

24%

123

2%2,

244

3%29

41%

4,52

12%

Rec

reat

ion

& o

pen

spac

e8,

510

20%

4,10

512

%2,

617

36%

24,0

4127

%14

,872

32%

54,1

4524

%A

gric

ultu

re16

,860

39%

9,75

828

%15

62%

7,94

09%

1,49

53%

36,2

0916

%V

acan

t4,

139

10%

6,00

817

%1,

371

19%

15,0

2317

%10

,899

23%

37,4

4017

%T

rans

porta

tion

2,22

55%

2,42

37%

131

2%9,

318

11%

4,07

59%

18,1

728%

Utilit

ies

157

0%24

11%

30%

493

1%24

31%

1,13

71%

Was

teha

ndlin

g86

0%85

0%27

0%22

40%

107

0%52

90%

TO

TA

L43

,297

100%

34,7

6710

0%7,

247

100%

88,9

6310

0%46

,996

100%

221,

270

100%

Ed

ite

d

an

d

Co

mp

ile

d

by

: S

us

tain

ab

le

Ea

st

En

d

De

ve

lop

me

nt

Str

ate

gie

s

Sou

thol

dR

iver

head

Tab

le 3

Lan

d U

se A

crea

ge b

y T

own

for E

aste

rn S

uffo

lk C

ount

y, 1

999

Not

es: L

ow d

ensi

ty re

side

ntia

l: ≤1

uni

t/acr

e; M

ediu

m d

ensi

ty re

side

ntia

l: >

1 to

<5

units

/acr

e; H

igh

dens

ity re

side

ntia

l: ≥5

uni

ts/a

cre

Tota

lsE

astH

ampt

onSo

utha

mpt

onS

helte

r Isl

and

Ed

ited

and

Co

mp

iled

: by

Sus

tain

able

Eas

t E

nd D

evel

op

men

t S

trat

egie

s

Table 4: LIRR Transit Data

LIRR Station Ridership & Parking-WeekdayStation 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/AHampton 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 AMSources: 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/OffWesthampton 54/757 59/123 356/7Hampton Bays 45/209 47/122 163/14Southampton 62/362 64/180 368/24Bridgehampton 34/447 0/122 273/3East Hampton 0/902 0/124 577/0Amagansett 34/114 0/42 115/0Montauk 0/266 0/81 249/0Notes: Counts taken on August 13-15, 1999Source: LIRR East End Transportation StudyEdited and Compiled by: Sustainable East End Development Strategies, Inventory and Analysis Report, 2004.http://www.seedsproject.com

43

Recent Train Schedules to Selected Stations

44

Leave Arrive Leave ArrivePenn East East Penn

Station Hampton Hampton Station12:35 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

ONLY 11:02 pm 2:09 am

4:21 pm 7:10 pm

5:51 pm 8:37 pm

8:30 pm 11:32 pm

Leave Arrive Leave ArrivePenn Penn

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

Source: http://mta.info/lirr/html/ttn/lirrtt .htm

* Winter 2005 schedule; schedules vary by season.

Monday to Fridays Except Holidays*

Monday to Fridays Except Holidays*

Riverhead Riverhead

* Winter 2005 schedule; schedules vary by season.

To Long Island To New York City

To New York CityMonday to Fridays Except

Holidays*

4:01 pm 6:17 pm

To Long IslandMonday to Fridays Except

Holidays*

Table 5: 2000 US Census – Travel Mode to Work

East HamptonCOMMUTING TO WORKWorkers 16 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9,240 100.0%Car, truck, or van — drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70.5Car, truck, or van — carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.9Public transportation (including taxicab) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.7Walked. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1Other means. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.4Mean travel time to work (minutes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21.2

RiverheadCOMMUTING TO WORKWorkers 16 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12,229 100.0%Car, truck, or van — drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80.9Car, truck, or van — carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.7Public transportation (including taxicab) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.6Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3Mean travel time to work (minutes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27.4

Shelter IslandCOMMUTING TO WORKWorkers 16 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,011 100.0%Car, truck, or van — drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69.1Car, truck, or van — carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.3Public transportation (including taxicab) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.4Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.4Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.7Mean travel time to work (minutes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19.7

SouthamptonCOMMUTING TO WORKWorkers 16 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25,363 100.0% Car, truck, or van — drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75.2Car, truck, or van — carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.5Public transportation (including taxicab) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.7Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.8Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.6Mean travel time to work (minutes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26.2

45

SoutholdCOMMUTING TO WORKWorkers 16 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8,917 100.0%Car, truck, or van — drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78.5Car, truck, or van — carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.4Public transportation (including taxicab) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.6Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.4Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.9Mean 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 sustainabledevelopment in order to make Long Island a more sustainable region. This conference complements theInstitute’s work on land use, transportation, and energy – some of the core issues that the Institute hasworked on in recent years.

Through this conference and this publication the Institute hopes to encourage an open and honestengagement about the future of transportation here on the East End. The transportation problems thatwe face go well beyond issues of morning congestion. The East End economy is dependent on secondhomes. As such, mobility and environmental quality are critical parts of our economy. Ensuring thesustainability of the East End also requires improving social equity elements, like public access, of ourtransportation infrastructure.

This report was compiled and edited by Dr. Scott Carlin, Christina Hamm, Lisa Brown, and Dr. DavidSprintzen. 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 financialsupport for our March 12, 2003 conference. We also thank EW Howell Co. for advertising support andAllison Pye for photography services. All photographs in this report were taken by Allison Pye, withthe following exceptions. John Corbett photographed the train on p. 33; The ferry on p. 35 is reprintedwith permission from http://www.greenport.cc; and the charts on pages 11 and 13 are fromhttp://www.seedsproject.com .

47

(front aisle) David SprintzenScott Carlin