august 2011 - nysdot home...2011/08/10 · august 2011 final report p.i.n. 0059.08 acknowledgements...

August 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor Joan McDonald, Commissioner

Sunrise Highway Corridor Sustainable Transportation Study

P.I.N. 0059.08 Town of Brookhaven,

Suffolk County Long Island, New York

August 2011 Final Report P.I.N. 0059.08

Acknowledgements

Federal and State Agencies This report has been financed in part through funding from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation as well as the New York State Department of Transportation. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation or of the New York State Department of Transportation.

The New York State Department of Transportation, Region 10 Planning and Programming Department would like to thank all those who contributed to the development of this plan.

Project Advisory Committee The advisory committee includes public and private stakeholders who provided valuable data and input. A list of participating agencies and organizations are included in the report.

Project Team New York State Department of Transportation Alexander Mirsakov William Thornewell Wayne Ugolik Glenn Murrell Joel Kleinberg Eileen Peters Margaret Conklin Janet Mahoney Jerome Wilson

Consultant Team Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. AECOM The RBA Group Zetlin Strategic Communications, Inc. Amy S. Greene Environmental Consultants, Inc. Barbara Thayer Associates Gedeon Engineering, P.C.


i

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 ALTERNATIVES BEING CONSIDERED .................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 ESTIMATED COSTS AND BENEFITS....................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................................................. 1-6 1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 1-6

CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3 PROJECT GOALS AND MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS .............................................................................................. 2-3

CHAPTER 3 TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS, PLANS AND NEEDS ................................................................... 3-1 3.1 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND SAFETY ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE INVENTORY .................................................................................................................. 3-14 3.3 TRANSIT ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-16 3.4 BICYCLE AND SHARED-USE FACILITIES ............................................................................................................... 3-23 3.5 GOODS MOVEMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 3-25 3.6 MUNICIPAL PARTNER REPORTS AND PLANS ....................................................................................................... 3-33

CHAPTER 4 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS ....................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS/BEST PRACTICES MODEL ....................................................................................... 4-20 4.3 VISSIM DYNAMIC SIMULATION ...................................................................................................................... 4-23

CHAPTER 5 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ........................................................... 5-1 5.1 SOCIAL.......................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 ECONOMIC .................................................................................................................................................... 5-9 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL .......................................................................................................................................... 5-11

CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS ........................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS OF “BUILD” ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................ 6-7 6.3 ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................... 6-9 6.4 EARLY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS .................................................................................................................. 6-13 6.5 FUNDING SOURCES ....................................................................................................................................... 6-14

CHAPTER 7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ........................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 PUBLIC MEETINGS .......................................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 ONLINE SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................................ 7-3 7.4 PROJECT PHONE LINE, E-MAIL ADDRESS, WEBSITE AND SMALL GROUP MEETINGS ...................................................... 7-3

CHAPTER 8 NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................................. 8-1 8.1 NEAR–TERM IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION STAGING ................................................................ 8-1 8.3 OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE JURISDICTION AGREEMENTS ................................................................................. 8-1


ii

Tables

Table ES-1: NY 27 Sustainable Highway Corridor Goals ........................................................................................ 1-3 Table ES-2 Capital Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 1-5 Table ES-3 Annual User Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 1-6 Table 2-1: NY 27 Sustainable Highway Corridor Goals and Measures of Effectiveness ...................................... 2-4 Table 3-1: Spot Speed Survey Results ................................................................................................................. 3-8 Table 3-2: NY 27 Vehicle Classification Count Summary (Average [AM, Midday, PM]) ...................................... 3-9 Table 3-3: NY 27 Vehicle Occupancy Count Summary (Average [AM, Midday, PM]) ....................................... 3-10 Table 3-4: Base Year Level of Service ................................................................................................................ 3-11 Table 3-5: Accident Rates (Existing Conditions) ................................................................................................ 3-12 Table 3-6: Accident Rates (2035 Forecast) ........................................................................................................ 3-13 Table 3-7: Existing Bridge Inventory .................................................................................................................. 3-16 Table 3-8: Annual Boarding Passenger Counts (2008 Suffolk Transit) .............................................................. 3-18 Table 3-9: Daily Boarding Passenger Counts (2006 Suffolk Transit) .................................................................. 3-18 Table 3-10: Station Passenger Counts ................................................................................................................. 3-21 Table 3-11: Station Passenger Count Forecasts (Estimated 2020 MTA LIRR – Weekday Morning Peak

Period) .............................................................................................................................................. 3-22 Table 4-1: Boarding Passengers (Suffolk Transit) .............................................................................................. 4-11 Table 4-2: Proposed Express Bus Route Forecasts ............................................................................................ 4-11 Table 4-3: Summary of LOS E or Worse by Project Alternative ......................................................................... 4-13 Table 5-1: Population Characteristics (2007/2008) ............................................................................................. 5-5 Table 5-2: Industry Breakdown for Labor Force (2007/2008) ............................................................................. 5-6 Table 5-3: Labor Force and Income Characteristics (2007/2008) ....................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-4: Housing Characteristics (2007) ........................................................................................................... 5-7 Table 5-5: Minority Populations and Income, by Census Tract ........................................................................... 5-8 Table 5-6: Parklands and Recreation Areas ......................................................................................................... 5-9 Table 5-7: Shopping Centers and Central Business Districts ............................................................................. 5-10 Table 5-8: Estimated Future Pollutant Emission Burdens (2035) ...................................................................... 5-11 Table 5-9: Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Estimates ...................................................... 5-13 Table 5-10: Summary of Potential Noise Impact Assessment Analysis and Estimated Noise Barrier Wall

Lengths ............................................................................................................................................. 5-14 Table 5-11: Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 5-15 Table 5-12: Critical Environmental Areas ............................................................................................................ 5-19 Table 5-13: Parks and Preserves.......................................................................................................................... 5-19 Table 5-14: Remediation Sites ............................................................................................................................. 5-20 Table 6-1: Order of Magnitude Construction Cost Estimate ............................................................................. 6-10 Table 6-2: Location and Estimated Order of Magnitude Costs of Potential ROW Takings ............................... 6-11 Table 6-3: Early Implementation Roadway Construction Cost Estimate ........................................................... 6-14 Table 7-1: Project Advisory Committee Invitees ................................................................................................. 7-1


iii

Figures

Figure ES-1: NY 27 (Sunrise Highway) Corridor Sustainable Transportation Study Area ....................................... 1-2 Figure 2-1: NY 27 (Sunrise Highway) Corridor Sustainable Transportation Study Area ....................................... 2-2 Figure 3-1: Travel Speed (NY 27 Westbound) – AM Peak Period ......................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2: Travel Speed (NY 27 Westbound) – PM Peak Period ......................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-3: Travel Speed (NY 27 Eastbound) – AM Peak Period ........................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-4: Travel Speed (NY 27 Eastbound) – PM Peak Period ........................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-5: Travel Speed (CR 80 [Montauk Highway] Westbound) – AM Peak Period ........................................ 3-4 Figure 3-6: Travel Speed (CR 80 [Montauk Highway] Westbound) – PM Peak Period ......................................... 3-4 Figure 3-7: Travel Speed (CR 80 [Montauk Highway] Eastbound) – AM Peak Period .......................................... 3-5 Figure 3-8: Travel Speed (CR 80 [Montauk Highway] Eastbound) – PM Peak Period .......................................... 3-5 Figure 3-9: Traffic Signal Delays (CR 80 [Montauk Highway] Westbound) – AM Peak Period ............................. 3-6 Figure 3-10: Traffic Signal Delays (CR 80 [Montauk Highway] Westbound) – PM Peak Period ............................. 3-6 Figure 3-11: Traffic Signal Delays (CR 80 [Montauk Highway] Eastbound) – AM Peak Period ............................... 3-7 Figure 3-12: Traffic Signal Delays (CR 80 [Montauk Highway] Eastbound) – PM Peak Period ............................... 3-7 Figure 3-13: Existing Transit Services ................................................................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3-14: Village of Patchogue Shuttle Bus Service ......................................................................................... 3-20 Figure 3-15: Existing Bicycle Facilities (2009) ....................................................................................................... 3-24 Figure 3-16: Freight Mode Split (Suffolk County) ................................................................................................. 3-25 Figure 3-17: Freight Facilities within Secondary Study Area ................................................................................ 3-28 Figure 3-18: Shopping Centers ............................................................................................................................. 3-29 Figure 3-19: New York and Atlantic Railway Lines and Freight Stations (Long Island) ......................................... 3-30 Figure 3-20: New York and Atlantic Railway Facilities (Long Island) .................................................................... 3-32 Figure 4-1: Bicycle Route Locations Map and Shared-Use Path Examples ........................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2: Typical Sections for Shared-Use Path (Separated from and Adjacent to Travel Lanes) ..................... 4-4 Figure 4-3: Proposed Extension of Suffolk Clipper ............................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-4: Proposed Ronkonkoma Express Service ............................................................................................. 4-8 Figure 4-5: Proposed NY 27 Study Area Transit Service ..................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-6: Typical Sections for Long-Term “Build” Alternatives ........................................................................ 4-17 Figure 4-7: Roadway Alternatives Typical Sections ............................................................................................ 4-19 Figure 4-8: VISSIM Results (2035 No Build – 7:00 AM) ....................................................................................... 4-27 Figure 5-1: Study Area Land Use........................................................................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2: Study Area Coverage Classified by 2000 Census Tract/Block Geographic Information

Systems............................................................................................................................................... 5-4


iv

List of Appendices

Appendix Chapter/Section No.

A.

Chapter 3 – Transportation Conditions, Plans and Needs 3.1.1 1 NY 27 Travel Speed 3.1.1 2 CR 80 Travel Speed & Delays 3.1.2 3 Spot Speed Surveys 3.1.3 4 Traffic Count Locations 3.1.3 5 Traffic Volumes – NY 27 Mainline Balanced AADT & ATR Volumes 3.1.3 6 Traffic Volumes – Balanced ATR & TMC AM PH 3.1.3 7 Traffic Volumes – Balanced ATR & TMC PM PH 3.1.4 8 Skycomp Draft Report Traffic Quality on Sunrise Highway 3.1.5 9 NY 27 Intersection LOS Analysis 3.1.6 10 NY 27 Accident Analysis Report 3.1.6 10 Accident Forecast & Estimate Cost Reductions 3.2 11 Highway and Bridge Inventory 3.3 12 NY 27 Transit Report 3.5 13 NY 27 Goods Movement Report 3.6 14 Municipal Partner Reports

B.

Chapter 4 – Alternatives Development 4.1.3 1 Public Meeting Comments Matrix 4.1.3 2 Conceptual Design Plans Alternative A 4.1.3 3 Conceptual Design Plans Alternative B 4.1.3 4 Near-Term Build 4.1.3 5 Long-Term “Build” Alternative with C-D Roads 4.1.3 6 Long-Term “Build” Alternative with Service Roads 4.1.3 7 Long-Term “Build” Alternative with HOV Lane and C-D Roads 4.1.3 8 Roadway Design Criteria Tables 4.2.1 9 BPM Calibration Results 4.2.3 10 Socioeconomic Data and Forecasts Inventory 4.3.2 11 VISSIM Dynamic Simulation – 2010 Base Year Condition 4.3.3 11 VISSIM Dynamic Simulation – 2035 “No Build” Alternative 4.3.4 11 VISSIM Dynamic Simulation – Near-Term “Build” Alternative 4.3.5 11 VISSIM Dynamic Simulation – 2035 HOV with C-D Roads “Build” Alternative 4.3.6 11 VISSIM Dynamic Simulation – 2035 “No Build” Alternative

C.

Chapter 5 – Social, Economic and Environmental Conditions 5.3.3 1 Inventory of Ecological Resources 5.3.4 2 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report Volume I: Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey 5.3.4 3 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report Project Area Map 5.3.4 4 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report Volume II: Appendix D and Appendix E 5.3.4 5 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report: Architectural Survey 5.3.4 6 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report Architecture 5.3.5 7 “GreenLITES” Checklist

D. Chapter 6 – Evaluation of Alternatives

6.2 1 Measures of Effectiveness 6.3.1 2 Construction Costs


v

Appendix Chapter/Section No.

E.

Chapter 7 – Public Involvement 7.1 1 Central Pine Barrens Letter – 02-07-11 7.1 2 Central Pine Barrens Letter – 05-18-11 7.1 3 Town of Brookhaven Letter – 06-20-11 7.1 4 PAC Members Letter – 04-22-11 Transmitting Draft Study Report and Appendices 7.1 5 Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge Letter – 04-29-11 7.2 6 Public Meeting Comment Log – 04-28-09 and 04-29-09 7.2 7 Public Comment Log – after 04-29-09 7.3 8 Online Survey 1 Questionnaire 7.3 9 Online Survey 1 Charts 7.3 10 Online Survey 2 Questionnaire 7.3 11 Online Survey 2 Charts


1-1

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction

NY 27, Sunrise Highway, is one of the major east-west arterial highways serving Long Island, extending from the New York City borough of Brooklyn on the west, through Nassau County, to the east end of Suffolk County. The road is a total of 120 miles in length, including 49.7 miles of limited access sections.

Initially built as a free-access arterial in the 1920s from Queens County to Massapequa in Nassau County, NY 27 was extended to Great River in the Town of Islip, Suffolk County, by 1940 and to Phyllis Drive in Patchogue, Town of Brookhaven, by 1953. Shopping centers, gas stations and other businesses were built and have flourished on both sides of the roadway for more than eighty years. From 1958 to 1973, the remaining portions in the east were planned and constructed as a limited access expressway to meet the needs of traffic growth. From 1972 to 1996, several large-scale construction projects were successfully implemented by NYSDOT to convert the free access portion to a controlled access highway between Farmingdale Road in West Babylon and Phyllis Drive in Patchogue.

Economic growth and land development over the past decade, and projected future growth within the Town of Brookhaven as well as throughout Suffolk County, have led to studies and proposals by local, county, and state agencies for a series of transportation improvements along the NY 27 corridor.

To improve safety and mobility for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, elected state officials prompted this study to develop a plan that provides smart, affordable, workable, and sustainable transportation solutions for an 11.5-mile section of the Sunrise Highway corridor.

The study scope of work has included the following work tasks:

· Task A – Study Limits, Goals and Objectives

· Task B – Inventory and Data Collection

· Task C – Community Involvement Program

· Task D – Technical Investigations

· Task E – Development of Alternative Improvements

· Task F – Evaluation of Alternative Improvements

· Task G – Refine and Draft Preferred Alternatives

· Task H – Implementation, Schedule, and Funding

· Task I – Recommendation and Documentation

· Task J – Identify Program Recommendations for the Maintenance of Newly Constructed and Reconstructed Roadway assets at a State of Good Repair

1.2 Project Location

The study area includes the main roadways, interchanges, service roads, and adjacent arterials of the NY 27 (Sunrise Highway) corridor within the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York. The primary study area includes 11.5 miles of NY 27 (Sunrise Highway) from NY 112 (Medford Avenue, Exit 53) to Wading River Road (Exit 59). The secondary study area encompasses the portion of Brookhaven bounded by I-495 (Long Island Expressway) on the north, Montauk Highway/Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Montauk Branch to the south, and one interchange to the east and west of the primary study area boundaries (Figure ES-1).


1-2

FIGURE ES-1: NY 27 (SUNRISE HIGHWAY) CORRIDOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA

1.2.1 Purpose and Need Locations within the study corridor experience traffic delays during peak morning and afternoon travel periods, which vary by season. Intermittent service roads along Sunrise Highway limit local connectivity and add to delays on the NY 27 main roadways, Montauk Highway, as well as north-south crossroads, since local traffic uses these roads to travel short distances. These delays affect the traveling public, emergency services, goods delivery, and evacuation routes. Higher than average accident rates have been recorded at two of the interchanges within the study corridor.

Anticipated long-term economic growth and land development impacts in this portion of Suffolk County are expected to result in additional congestion, delays, and safety problems at specific locations within the primary and secondary study areas. Current low passenger-vehicle occupancy levels along NY 27 during peak periods reflect the lack of competitive alternative modes of travel.

1.2.2 Project Goals Table ES-1 presents the project goals, as developed and refined with input from the public and Project Advisory Committee members (Section 7.1). Specific measures of effectiveness were identified and used to determine the degree to which each proposed “Build” Alternative would achieve these goals.


1-3

Table ES-1: NY 27 Sustainable Highway Corridor Goals

A. Provide safe and efficient transportation system for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists, transit users and goods movement in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner.

B. Expand transportation options in the area, including transit (Long Island Rail Road and Suffolk Transit), rideshare, and non-motorized travel. Incorporate pertinent recommendations from relevant transit plans.

C. Incorporate accessibility and connectivity along the NY 27 corridor, including mainline, service roads, and local road network in a way sensible to local communities. Implement access management principals wherever practical.

D. Protect the environment, including water and air quality. Ensure mitigation of environmental impacts for public benefits.

E. Contribute to energy conservation. Reduce growth of vehicle miles traveled throughout the corridor.

F. Ensure no community, including any minority and low-income neighborhood, is disproportionately impacted by proposed projects.

G. Provide positive benefits for special needs groups, including, but not limited to: aging population and people with disabilities.

H. Help to achieve local community development goals consistent with land-use visions, adopted zoning, and municipal plans.

I. Provide a safe and efficient transportation system for emergency services operations, and ensure consistency with emergency management plans for the area.

J. Identify and preserve existing transportation assets. Determine jurisdiction and future maintenance responsibilities for any new assets built as a result of proposed improvements.

K. Foster a sense of place for area communities through public and private partnerships to preserve and enhance distinguishing amenities, aesthetics, historical context, and existing character.

L. Protect the regional role of the Sunrise Highway Corridor.

1.3 Alternatives Being Considered

For this study, the following Transportation Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management measures (as well as one Near-Term “Build” Alternative and three Long-Term “Build” Alternatives) are considered:

· Providing a shared-use (bicycle and pedestrian) path along the north side of NY 27 from NY 112 (Medford Avenue) to Titmus Drive;

· Extending Suffolk Clipper bus service to a modified park-and-ride lot at the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station;

· Providing new express bus between the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station and a modified park-and-ride lot at the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station;

· Continuing NYSDOT-funded contracts to encourage the formation of car and vanpools, and travel by non-motorized and mass-transit modes;

· Coordinating an agreement among local officials for traffic signal optimization;

· Expanding the INFORM (Information FOR Motorists) system to the NY 27 study corridor; and

· Expanding the H.E.L.P. (Highway Emergency Local Patrol) program to the NY 27 study corridor.

The Near-Term “Build” Alternative includes:

· Adding a westbound auxiliary lane from Robinson Avenue to Phyllis Drive;

· Widening the Hospital Road north and south service road intersections and approaches;


1-4

· Adding exit and entrance ramps and extending the south service road from east of Hospital Road to west of Station Road;

· Adding exit and entrance ramps and extending the south service road from east of William Floyd Parkway to Titmus Drive;

· Adding a westbound entrance ramp and auxiliary lane on NY 27 from Victory Avenue to the Oak Avenue exit ramp;

· Widening the Titmus Drive Bridge and service road intersection approaches; and

· Adding a full interchange at Barnes Road.

The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads includes:

· Using the Near-Term “Build” Alternative improvements; however, instead of service roads, north and south one-way collector-distributor roads close to the main NY 27 roadways will be included from Hospital Road to Station Road;

· Widening the Hospital Road bridge and north service road and south service road intersection approaches (by others);

· Adding a third eastbound and westbound general purpose lane in the 66-foot-wide NY 27 median, from Phyllis Drive to east of Old Horseblock Road;

· Adding exit and entrance ramps along the new collector-distributor roads from Patchogue-Yaphank Road to Station Road;

· Removing the westbound “J” exit ramp to the north service road, converting this service road to one-way westbound, and providing a new westbound exit ramp;

· Extending Yaphank Avenue westbound entrance ramp acceleration lane;

· Reconfiguring Old Horse Block Road interchange to include removing the eastbound and westbound main roadway weaving sections, providing a roundabout at the Victory Avenue intersection, other Yaphank Avenue intersection improvements, and providing a new intersection for southbound left turns south of NY 27;

· Extending the Victory Avenue westbound entrance ramp acceleration lane;

· Extending the south service road and north service road west of Jerusalem Hollow Road to Moriches-Middle Island Road;

· Adding a new NY 27 eastbound south service road exit ramp and westbound north service road entrance ramp at Moriches-Middle island Road;

· Adding a new NY 27 eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes from Moriches Middle Island Road ramps to Barnes Road ramps; and

· Removing the eastbound entrance ramp and westbound exit ramp east of Wading River Road, and adding a westbound entrance ramp and eastbound exit ramp west of Railroad Avenue.

The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads includes:

· Using the Near-Term improvements; however, instead of a westbound auxiliary lane from Robinson Avenue to Phyllis Drive, extending the north service road from west of Hewlett Avenue to Phyllis Drive;

· Extending existing north and south service roads from Hospital Road to Station Road, and converting to one-way westbound and eastbound, respectively;


1-5

· Adding exit and entrance ramps along the new north service road and south service road from Hospital Road to east of Station Road,

· Widening the Hospital Road bridge and north service road and south service road intersection approaches;


· Extending westbound entrance ramp acceleration lane along Yaphank Avenue;

· Reconfiguring Old Horse Block Road interchange, including removal of the eastbound and westbound main roadway weaving sections, providing a roundabout at the Victory Avenue intersection, other Yaphank Avenue intersection improvements, and providing a new intersection for southbound left turns south of NY 27;

· Extending the Victory Avenue westbound entrance ramp acceleration lane;

· Extending the south service road and north service road west of Jerusalem Hollow Road to Moriches-Middle Island Road;

· Adding a new NY 27 eastbound south service road exit ramp and westbound north service road entrance ramp at Moriches-Middle Island Road, and

· Removing the eastbound entrance ramp and westbound exit ramp east of Wading River Road, and adding a westbound entrance ramp and eastbound exit ramp west of Railroad Avenue.

The Long-Term HOV Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads includes:

· Using the Long-Term General Purpose Lane Collector-Distributor Road or Service Road improvements; and

· Extending a third eastbound and westbound lane within the 66-foot-wide median of NY 27 from Phyliss Drive to east of William Floyd Parkway to provide both high-occupancy vehicle lanes and full buffer and shoulder areas.

1.4 Environmental Impacts

The Near-Term “Build” Alternative would result in the lowest cumulative level of potential environmental impacts, while the Long-Term General Purpose Lane with Service Roads and Long-Term HOV Lane with Service Roads Alternatives would result in the highest cumulative level of potential impacts.

1.5 Estimated Costs and Benefits

Table ES-2 summarizes the estimated construction, right-of-way acquisition, and transit equipment costs for each “Build” alternative.

Table ES-2 Capital Cost Estimates

Alternative Construction

($ M) Right-of-Way

($ M) Bus Transit

($ M) Total ($ M)

Near-Term “Build” Alternative 54.0 12.0 3.0 69.0 General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads 149.8 12.8 3.0 165.6 General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative Service Roads 157.6 13.8 3.0 174.4 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane with Collector-Distributor Roads 233.0 12.8 3.0 248.8


1-6

Table ES-3 summarizes the estimated value of annual user benefits, comprising the economic values of vehicle operating cost and travel time savings, accident reductions, and vehicle emissions reductions attributed to each “Build” alternative compared to the “No Build” alternative.

Table ES-3 Annual User Benefits

Alternative Total ($ M) Return on Investment (%)

Near-Term “Build” Alternative -0.16 - 0.2 General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads 22.1 13.3 General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative Service Roads 8.1 4.6 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane with Collector-Distributor Roads 30.0 12.1

As indicated above, the two alternatives with the highest return on investment (Annual User Benefits/Total Capital Cost, %) were the General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads and High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads.

1.6 Preferred Alternative

A preferred alternative has not been selected; however, of the “Build” Alternatives studied, the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads provided the highest investment return, lowest capital cost, and lowest overall impacts to the environment. The Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads was the highest in capital cost and environmental impact and resulted in continued congestion along the two general-purpose lanes during peak periods.

1.7 Public Involvement

A Project Advisory Committee was established, and meetings were held over the course of the study for members to suggest and discuss a comprehensive range of recommendations. Public meetings were also held to establish an open and ongoing communication with area residents and stakeholders, and to ensure that the study reflected local and community concerns and goals.

Online surveys were conducted to gain additional feedback on specific areas of concern, possible transportation-improvement alternatives, funding sources, and quality of life issues. A project website (www.nysdot.gov/NY 27) was established and used as a resource depository, allowing the public to learn more about the study, participate in the online surveys, and gain access to study materials.

A project hotline (631-952-6234), mailing address (250 Veterans Memorial Hwy, Room 4A4, Hauppauge NY 11788) and a project email address ([email protected]) were in place throughout the study and served as communication vehicle for the public to ask about the study and provide input.

The study team also participated in meeting with the following stakeholders and agencies: the Brookhaven Bicycle Advisory Committee, Town of Brookhaven Planning and Environment Department (Planning and Traffic and Safety units), Metropolitan Transportation Authority Long Island Railroad and Suffolk County Department of Public Works.

http://www.nysdot.gov/NY 27�

mailto:[email protected]�


2-1

CHAPTER 2 Introduction NY 27, Sunrise Highway, is one of the major east-west arterial highways serving Long Island, extending from the New York City borough of Brooklyn on the west, through Nassau County, to the east end of Suffolk County. The road is a total of 120 miles in length, including 49.7 miles of limited access sections.

Initially built as a free-access arterial in the 1920s from Queens County to Massapequa in Nassau County, it was extended to Great River in the Town of Islip, Suffolk County, by 1940 and to Phyllis Drive in Patchogue, Town of Brookhaven, by 1953. Shopping centers, gas stations and other businesses were built and have flourished on both sides of the roadway for more than eighty years. From 1958 to 1973, the remaining portions in the east were planned and constructed as a limited access expressway to meet the needs of traffic growth. From 1972 to 1996, several large-scale construction projects were successfully implemented by NYSDOT to convert the free access portion to a controlled access highway between Farmingdale Road in West Babylon and Phyllis Drive in Patchogue.

Economic growth and land development over the past decade, and projected future growth within the Town of Brookhaven as well as throughout Suffolk County, have led to studies and proposals by local, county, and state agencies for a series of transportation improvements along the NY 27 corridor.

To improve safety and mobility for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, elected state officials prompted this study to develop a plan that provides smart, affordable, workable, and sustainable transportation solutions for this 11.5-mile section of the Sunrise Highway corridor. The study area includes the main roadways, interchanges, service roads, and adjacent arterials of the NY 27 (Sunrise Highway) corridor within the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York.

The study scope of work has involved the following work tasks:

· Task A – Study Limits, Goals and Objectives: Establish study limits, goals and objectives and establish performance measures in conjunction with stakeholders, and update as necessary with community involvement.

· Task B – Inventory and Data Collection: Collect and inventory travel, roadway (including but not limited to drainage, signs, clearances, pavement, structures and etc.), transit (which may include LIRR service) and socio-economic data and travel forecasts.

· Task C – Community Involvement Program: Establish program concurrently with Inventory and Data Collection tasks and maintain a community involvement program throughout study.

· Task D – Technical Investigations: Identify current and future transportation needs of systems serving the study area.

· Task E – Development of Alternative Improvements: Develop multimodal solutions to address existing and future transportation deficiencies.

· Task F – Evaluation of Alternative Improvements: Evaluate the multimodal strategies and actions developed in Task E using NYMTC’s Best Practices Model.

· Task G – Refine and Draft Preferred Alternatives

· Task H – Implementation, Schedule, and Funding: Identify logical termini, phases and costs of preferred alternatives.

· Task I – Recommendation and Documentation: Prepare draft and final study reports.

· Task J – Identify Program Recommendations for the Maintenance of Newly Constructed and Reconstructed Roadway assets at a State of Good Repair


2-2

2.1 Project Location

The primary study area includes 11.5 miles of NY 27 (Sunrise Highway), from NY 112 (Medford Avenue, Exit 53) to Wading River Road (Exit 59). The secondary study area encompasses the portion of Brookhaven bounded by I-495 (Long Island Expressway) on the north, Montauk Highway/Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Montauk Branch to the south and one interchange to the east and west of the primary study area boundaries (Figure 2-1).

FIGURE 2-1: NY 27 (SUNRISE HIGHWAY) CORRIDOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA

2.2 Purpose and Need

Locations within the study corridor experience traffic delays during peak morning and afternoon travel periods, varying by season. Intermittent service roads along Sunrise Highway limit local connectivity and add to delays on the NY 27 main roadways, CR 80 (Montauk Highway), as well as north-south roads, since local traffic uses these roads to travel short distances. These delays affect the traveling public, emergency services, goods delivery, and evacuation routes. Higher than average accident rates have been recorded at the interchanges of these north-south roadways with NY 27.

Anticipated long-term economic growth and land development impacts in this portion of Suffolk County are expected to result in additional congestion, delays, and safety problems at specific locations within the primary and secondary study areas. Current low passenger-vehicle occupancy levels along NY 27 during peak periods reflect the lack of competitive alternative modes of travel.


2-3

Specific deficiencies were identified from the physical roadway inventories, traffic operations data collected, and accident analyses conducted at the outset of the study. These included non-standard length weaving sections along the main NY 27 roadways, short “J” exit ramps to two-way service roads, discontinuous north and south service roads, narrow bridges, and congestion at signalized intersections and approaches to the at-grade LIRR crossing on CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) south of CR 80 (Montauk Highway). Also identified was the lack of frequent transit (commuter bus and rail) service from the study area to major employment areas, and the lack of non-motorized transportation choices for commuter and recreational travel.

Major deficiencies and needs identified by the public and study area stakeholders at and subsequent to public outreach meetings and website surveys included the lack of continuous service roads, the need for improved interchange ramps, new interchanges at Titmus Drive and Barnes Road, additional NY 27 main roadway lanes along the existing four lane section, improved traffic operations at CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway), an auxiliary lane between Hospital Road and NY 112, and improved roadway safety.

2.3 Project Goals and Measures of Effectiveness

Table 2-1 presents the project goals and objectives, as developed and refined with input from the public and Project Advisory Committee members (Section 7.1).


2-4

Table 2-1: NY 27 Sustainable Highway Corridor Goals and Measures of Effectiveness

Goals Measures of Effectiveness A. Provide safe and efficient transportation system for

motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists, transit users and goods movement in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner.

· Improve safety for all users · Relieve roadway congestion · Divide improvement ideas into (potentially) short-term, medium-term and

long-term recommendations · Maximize return on investment

B. Expand transportation options in the area, including transit (Long Island Rail Road and Suffolk Transit), rideshare, and non-motorized travel. Incorporate pertinent recommendations from relevant transit plans.

· Support transit service and potential improvements · Improve Bicycle/Pedestrian Network · Improve existing Park and Ride facilities, provide new facility(ies)

C. Incorporate accessibility and connectivity along the NY 27 corridor, including mainline, service roads, and local road network in a way sensible to local communities. Implement access management principals wherever practical.

· Connect missing links, reduce circuitous travel routes · Respect local neighborhoods and reduce through travel on local streets · Address local access deficiencies identified in Public Outreach Program

D. Protect the environment, including water and air quality. Ensure mitigation of environmental impacts for public benefits.

· Minimize construction impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and implement proper mitigation where impacts are unavoidable

· Reduce vehicle emissions · Minimize other environmental impacts

E. Contribute to energy conservation. Reduce growth of vehicle miles traveled throughout the corridor.

· Reduce drive-alone travel

F. Ensure no community, including any minority and low-income neighborhood, is disproportionately impacted by proposed projects.

· Minimize right-of-way impacts · Minimize impacts associated with modified travel patterns

G. Provide positive benefits for special needs groups, including, but not limited to: aging population and people with disabilities.

· Support transit service in areas with higher populations of senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and other special needs

· Improve roadway infrastructure for special needs groups (signing, lighting, etc.)

· Provide ADA roadway design features to improve accessibility for the handicapped.

H. Help to achieve local community development goals consistent with land-use visions, adopted zoning, and municipal plans.

· Support Town of Brookhaven 2030 Comprehensive Plan - 8 Guiding Principles

· Consistent with plans, visions of villages, civic groups, and other stakeholders

I. Provide a safe and efficient transportation system for emergency services operations, and ensure consistency with emergency management plans for the area.

· Consistent with Town of Brookhaven Roadway Evacuation Study, Hamlets of Shirley, Mastic and Mastic Beach

· Address concerns of fire, police, emergency service providers. · Support Town of Brookhaven emergency preemption (traffic signal)

program.

J. Identify and preserve existing transportation assets. Determine jurisdiction and future maintenance responsibilities for any new assets built as a result of proposed improvements.

· Develop agreements between Town, County, NYSDOT and other agencies to maintain proposed assets

K. Foster a sense of place for area communities through public and private partnerships to preserve and enhance distinguishing amenities, aesthetics, historical context, and existing character.

· Design, landscaping, signing to comply with individual community character

L. Protect the regional role of the Sunrise Highway Corridor.

· Avoid diversion of “through-trips” from Sunrise Hwy main roadway · Maintain the primary NY 27 main roadways function as serving regional

travel


3-1

CHAPTER 3 Transportation Conditions, Plans and Needs 3.1 Traffic Operations and Safety

Under Task B of this study, typical of similar corridor transportation planning projects, a field survey and existing data collection program was conducted to inventory information on traffic operations and vehicular accidents. These surveys included travel speeds along NY 27 main roadways, travel speeds and delays at intersections along CR 80 (Montauk Highway), speeds at selected locations along both roadways as well as on I-495 (Long Island Expressway), and traffic volumes along each of these roadways as well as the major parallel and intersecting arterials within the study area. The survey techniques and equipment used were standard methods employed by the transportation engineering industry. Data on traffic accidents over the three year period from January 2005 to December 2007 were obtained from the State’s summarized accident report files. These data were used to document and analyze existing conditions in the study area and provided the basis for identifying deficiencies, confirming problem locations identified in the public outreach efforts and project advisory committee meetings, and developing future travel demand forecasts and alternative improvement recommendations.

3.1.1 Travel Speed and Delay Surveys Travel speed and delay surveys were conducted along NY 27 and CR 80 (Montauk Highway) during the AM and PM peak periods in January and February of 2009. The survey vehicle was driven at speeds corresponding to other westbound and eastbound vehicles on both roadways between 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 8:00 PM.

Travel Speed

NY 27 Average speeds along the NY 27 westbound roadway ranged from 50.6 to 68.1 miles per hour and from 52.1 to 69.1 miles per hour during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). The slowest speeds were recorded at the western end of the study corridor between Hospital Road and Ocean Avenue.


3-2

FIGURE 3-1: TRAVEL SPEED (NY 27 WESTBOUND) – AM PEAK PERIOD

FIGURE 3-2: TRAVEL SPEED (NY 27 WESTBOUND) – PM PEAK PERIOD


3-3

Average speeds along the NY 27 eastbound roadway ranged from 55.1 to 64.9 miles per hour and from 33.8 to 68.0 miles per hour during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). The slowest speeds were recorded near the western end of the corridor, between Hospital Road and the CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road) exit during both the AM and PM peak periods. The NY 27 travel speed survey run data are provided in Appendix A.1.

FIGURE 3-3: TRAVEL SPEED (NY 27 EASTBOUND) – AM PEAK PERIOD

FIGURE 3-4: TRAVEL SPEED (NY 27 EASTBOUND) – PM PEAK PERIOD


3-4

CR 80 (Montauk Highway) Average speeds on CR 80 (Montauk Highway) westbound ranged from 9.4 to 47.4 miles per hour and from 11.7 to 45.3 miles per hour during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). The slowest speeds recorded during the AM peak period were observed at the western end of the study corridor, between Bay Avenue and Old Medford Avenue. The slowest PM peak period speeds were recorded between Grand Avenue and CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway).

FIGURE 3-5: TRAVEL SPEED (CR 80 [MONTAUK HIGHWAY] WESTBOUND) – AM PEAK PERIOD

13.7

47.4

9.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Spee

d (m

ph)

Control Point

Average Standard Deviation

FIGURE 3-6: TRAVEL SPEED (CR 80 [MONTAUK HIGHWAY] WESTBOUND) – PM PEAK PERIOD

11.7

45.3

11.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Spee

d (m

ph)

Control Point

AverageStandard Deviation


3-5

The eastbound surveys indicated that average speeds ranged from 9.2 to 47.5 miles per hour and from 5.5 to 45.9 miles per hour during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively (Figures 3-7 and 3-8). The slowest speeds during the AM and PM peak periods were recorded between Upton Street and CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway). The CR 80 (Montauk Highway) travel speed survey run data are provided in Appendix A. 2.

FIGURE 3-7: TRAVEL SPEED (CR 80 [MONTAUK HIGHWAY] EASTBOUND) – AM PEAK PERIOD

47.5

9.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Spee

d (m

ph)

Control Point


FIGURE 3-8: TRAVEL SPEED (CR 80 [MONTAUK HIGHWAY] EASTBOUND) – PM PEAK PERIOD

45.9

5.50.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Spee

d (m

ph)

Control Point



3-6

CR 80 (Montauk Highway) Intersection Delays Delays in the westbound direction experienced during the AM peak period were due to the traffic signals located along the roadway segments from Smith Avenue to CR 21 (Old Horseblock Road) as well as from Grand Avenue to CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) (Figures 3-9 and 3-10). Major delays at traffic signals were also observed in the westbound direction during the PM peak period between the traffic signal at the Kohl’s entrance to the South Port Mall and CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway).

FIGURE 3-9: TRAFFIC SIGNAL DELAYS (CR 80 [MONTAUK HIGHWAY] WESTBOUND) – AM PEAK PERIOD

0:00

0:07

0:14

0:21

0:28

0:36

0:43

0:50

Delay

(Min

:Sec

)

Control Point

7:03AM8:05AM9:03AM

FIGURE 3-10: TRAFFIC SIGNAL DELAYS (CR 80 [MONTAUK HIGHWAY] WESTBOUND) – PM PEAK PERIOD

0:00

0:07

0:14

0:21

0:28

0:36

0:43

0:50

0:57

Delay

(Min

:Sec

)

Control Point

4:32 PM5:30 PM6:35 PM


3-7

Delays in the eastbound direction experienced during the AM peak period were due to the traffic signals located from Upton Street to Grand Avenue, with major delays at CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway), and from Titmus Drive to Moriches Middle Island Road (Figure 3-11). Major eastbound delays were observed during the PM peak period at the CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) signalized intersection (Figure 3-12).

FIGURE 3-11: TRAFFIC SIGNAL DELAYS (CR 80 [MONTAUK HIGHWAY] EASTBOUND) – AM PEAK PERIOD

0:00

0:07

0:14

0:21

0:28

0:36

0:43

0:50

Delay

(Min

:Sec

)

Control Point

6:31AM7:32 AM8:34AM

FIGURE 3-12: TRAFFIC SIGNAL DELAYS (CR 80 [MONTAUK HIGHWAY] EASTBOUND) – PM PEAK PERIOD

0:00

0:07

0:14

0:21

0:28

0:36

0:43

0:50

0:57

1:04

1:12

Delay

(Min

:Sec

)

Control Point

4:01 PM5:05PM6:02 PM


3-8

3.1.2 Spot Speed Surveys Spot speed surveys were performed in the eastbound and westbound directions along NY 27, CR 80 (Montauk Highway), and the Long Island Expressway within the study area between 9:30 AM and 11:30 AM and between 2:30 PM and 4:00 PM in October 2008. The results of these surveys indicated that the 85th percentile speeds ranged between 61 and 71 miles per hour on NY 27, between 48 and 51 miles per hour on CR 80 (Montauk Highway), and between 69 and 72 miles per hour on the Long Island Expressway (Table 3-1). The survey data are provided in Appendix A.3.

Table 3-1: Spot Speed Survey Results

Roadway Location Number of

Lanes

Travel Direction 85th Percentile Speed

(miles per hour)

Westbound Eastbound 9:30 AM– 11:30 AM

2:30 PM– 4:00 PM

NY 27, Mainline West of Medford Avenue 3 X 64 62 X 61 62

NY 27, Mainline West of Station Road 2 X 64 65 NY 27, Mainline West of Station Road 2 X 67 63 NY 27, Mainline West of Wading River Road 2 X 71 69 NY 27, Mainline West of Wading River Road 2 X 71 69 CR 80 (Montauk Highway) West of Station Road 1 X 50 51 CR 80 (Montauk Highway) West of Station Road 1 X 48 49 I-495 (Long Island Expressway) West of Horseblock Road 3 X 70 69 I-495 (Long Island Expressway) West of Horseblock Road 2 X 72 71

3.1.3 Traffic Volumes Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) Counts The ATR (pneumatic road tube actuated counting equipment) counts were taken in October 2008 at 77 locations on NY 27 and CR 80 (Montauk Highway). The count locations are shown in Appendix A.4. The counters were placed for a period of two weeks, recording volumes every hour. The data was processed using weekday and seasonal factors to provide balanced average annual daily traffic volumes and AM, Midday, and PM peak-period and peak-hour volumes along each directional roadway as shown in Appendix A.5.

Intersection Turning Movements The automatic traffic recorder counts obtained along the NY 27 mainline were supplemented by intersection manual traffic turning movement counts at the intersections along the corridor between NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and Wading River Road, including: · NY 27 north service road at NY 112 (Medford Avenue) · NY 27 south service road at NY 112 (Medford Avenue) · NY 27 north service road at Hospital Road · NY 27 south service road at Hospital Road · NY 27 north service road at CR 101 (Sills/Patchogue-Yaphank Road) · NY 27 south service road at CR 101 (Sills/Patchogue-Yaphank Road) · NY 27 north service road at Station Road · NY 27 south service road at Station Road · Yaphank Avenue at Old Horse Block Road · Horseblock Road at Old Horse Block Road


3-9

· Victory Avenue at CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) · McGraw at CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) · NY 27 north service road at Wading River Road · NY 27 south service road at Wading River Road

Similarly, intersection manual traffic turning movement counts were recorded along the CR 80 (Montauk Highway) corridor at the following locations:

· CR 80 (Montauk Highway) at Old Horseblock Road

· CR 80 (Montauk Highway) at CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway)

· CR 80 (Montauk Highway)/East Main Street at Lake Drive/South Country Road

· CR 80 (Montauk Highway) at Station Road

The balanced AM and PM peak-hour intersection turning movements and ATR counts are provided in Appendix A.6 and Appendix A.7. These data were supplemented by data collected by NYSDOT as part of their routine operations.

Classification Counts Manual vehicle classification counts identifying the number of passenger vehicles, trucks by size, and buses along each major corridor roadway were taken in October 2008 (Table 3-2). These counts indicated that buses and heavy trucks comprised an average of 5 percent, 8.5 percent, and 6 percent of the total bidirectional daily traffic along NY 27, CR 80 (Montauk Highway), and Long Island Expressway, respectively. Heavy vehicles comprised 5 percent of NY 27 traffic in both the eastbound and westbound directions daily, while CR 80 (Montauk Highway) carried an average of 5 percent and 12 percent daily, and the Long Island Expressway carried 7 percent and 5 percent daily (eastbound and westbound, respectively).

Table 3-2: NY 27 Vehicle Classification Count Summary (Average [AM, Midday, PM])

Location Direction HV %

(HWY by Dir) HV % (Total) EB WB

L1. NY 27 Mainline, West of Medford Avenue L2. NY 27 Mainline, West of Station Road L3. NY 27 Mainline, West of Wading River Road

√ 5.0% 5.0%

√ 5.0%

L4. CR 80 (Montauk Hwy), West of Station Road √ 5.0% 8.5% √ 12.0%

L5. Long Island Expressway Mainline, West of Horseblock Road

√ 7.0% 6.0% √ 5.0%

Vehicle Occupancy Manual vehicle occupancy counts of the number of persons in a sample of passenger vehicles were taken at the same locations as the vehicle classification counts in October 2008 (Table 3-3). The results indicated that average passenger vehicle occupancy rates on NY 27 were 1.1 and 1.2, respectively, in the eastbound and westbound directions daily, while CR 80 (Montauk Highway) carried an average occupancy rate of 1.3 daily in both directions. The Long Island Expressway occupancy rates were 1.1 and 1.2, respectively, in the eastbound and westbound directions daily.


3-10

Table 3-3: NY 27 Vehicle Occupancy Count Summary (Average [AM, Midday, PM])

Location Direction Occ. Rate

(HWY by Dir) Occ. Rate

(Total) EB WB L1. NY 27 Mainline, West of Medford Avenue L2. NY 27 Mainline, West of Station Road L3. NY 27 Mainline, West of Wading River Road

√ 1.1 1.2

√ 1.2

L4. CR 80 (Montauk Hwy), West of Station Road √ 1.3 1.3 √ 1.3

L5. Long Island Expressway Mainline, West of Horseblock Road

√ 1.1 1.2 √ 1.2

3.1.4 Levels of Service, Main Roadways Skycomp Aerial Photo Surveys An aerial photo survey was conducted to identify traffic conditions during peak commuting and recreational periods along the Sunrise Highway study corridor from NY 112 (Medford Avenue) to Wading River Road. High-resolution digital cameras were used to acquire overlapping still photographs of vehicles traveling on the highway and the lanes they were traveling in.

The flights and photos were conducted at 20-minute intervals during an October 2008 weekday: AM Peak (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and PM Peak (4:00 to 6:00 PM). To evaluate seasonal travel, surveys were also conducted on an August 2008 weekend: Friday PM Peak (4:00 to 6:00 PM), Saturday Midday Peak (11:00 AM to 2:00 PM), and Sunday PM Peak (3:00 to 6:00 PM).

The photographs were subsequently used to measure and compute the density of traffic flow in terms of passenger cars per lane per mile. Density-based Highway Capacity Manual levels of service (LOS) were then determined as follows:

· LOS A: densities from 0 to 11 (very light traffic);

· LOS B: densities from 12 to 18 (light to moderate traffic);

· LOS C: densities from 19 to 26 (moderate traffic);

· LOS D: densities from 27 to 35 (moderate to heavy traffic);

· LOS E: densities from 36 to approximately 45 (heavy traffic, but still at speeds close to free-flow);

· LOS F: densities from 46 to 60 indicate delay involving minor degrees of slowing, average speeds usually range between 50 and 30 miles per hour; densities from 60 to 80 indicate traffic flow at average speeds usually ranging between 40 and 15 miles per hour; densities from 80 to 100 indicate congested traffic flow, with some stopping possible, average speeds usually range between 10 and 25 miles per hour; densities above 100 indicate severe congestion, with considerable stop-and-go flow likely.

In the industry, commonly accepted traffic conditions are LOS C or better. However, for purposes of this study the NYSDOT made a strategic decision to accept traffic conditions of LOS D or better. The LOS results were presented in detail in Skycomp’s 2008 report, Traffic Quality on Sunrise Highway (SR 27), provided in Appendix A.8.


3-11

As described in the Skycomp report, during the morning peak-period, westbound congestion was observed for approximately 2 to 3 miles between Station Road and near Washington Avenue, where the roadway widens from two to three lanes. Segments 2, 3, and 4 operated at LOS F between 7:20 AM and 8:20 AM. During the afternoon peak period, intermittent eastbound congestion was observed between the vicinity of Hospital Road and CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road). Segments 2 and 3 operated at LOS E or F mainly between 5:20 to 6:00 PM. Westbound and eastbound traffic entering Sunrise Highway at Hospital Road and CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road) appeared to exacerbate congestion during both time periods.

In the summer during the Friday afternoon peak period, LOS F eastbound congestion was observed between NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road) (approximately 2 to 3 miles) and westbound between the north service road entrance ramp from Hospital Road, and the north service road exit east of NY 112 (Medford Avenue) (approximately 1 to 2 miles). Traffic was affected by the lane drop (three lanes to two) between NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and Hospital Road, traffic entering from Hospital Road and CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road), and congestion on CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) extending back onto Sunrise Highway.

3.1.5 Levels of Service, Intersections Study-corridor intersection turning-movement traffic counts obtained in the fall of 2008, along with physical and traffic control data, were used to prepare LOS analyses using the Highway Capacity Manual Synchro program (Table 3-4). Intersections with one or more approaches operating at LOS E or F included NY 112 (Medford Avenue)/north and south service roads, Wading River Road/north service road, Patchogue-Yaphank Road/south service road, CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway)/Victory Avenue, CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway)/McGraw Street, and CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway)/CR 80 (Montauk Highway). As indicated, 19 intersection approach movements operated at congested levels of service during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The detailed calculation results for both existing traffic and for projected design-year traffic are provided in Appendix A.9.

Table 3-4: Base Year Level of Service

Intersection Direction AM PM

Approach V/C Delay LOS Approach V/C Delay LOS Hospital Rd/S. Service Rd EB L 0.44 31.4 C L 0.91 58.3 E Station Rd/S. Service Rd EB L 0.59 40.6 D L 0.94 83.5 F Medford Ave/N. Service Rd NB L 0.85 55.3 E L 0.85 42.5 D

Medford Ave/S. Service Rd EB R 0.40 10.0 A R 1.29 174.4 F NB TR 0.94 47.7 D TR 1.20 129.5 F

Wading River Rd/N. Service Rd NB L 0.82 55.7 E L 0.74 63.3 E SB TR 0.69 54.2 D TR 0.71 56.4 E

Wading River Rd/S. Service Rd EB LTR 0.91 49.2 D LTR 1.02 68.6 E Patchogue-Yaphank/S. Service Rd EB LTR 1.74 368.9 F LTR 1.98 473.4 F

William Floyd Parkway/Victory Ave WB TR 1.13 110.9 F TR 0.71 32.9 C NB T 1.14 104.2 F T 0.94 48.5 D SB L 1.12 167.9 F L 0.77 79.4 E

William Floyd Parkway/McGraw St SB TR 0.81 19.3 B TR 1.58 284.5 F NB TR 1.77 369.1 F TR 0.98 36.3 D

William Floyd Parkway/Montauk Hwy WB R 1.10 85.1 F R 0.55 12.2 B SB L 0.89 43.8 D L 1.01 71.1 E


3-12

3.1.6 Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis Accidents, Existing Conditions Accident data was compiled between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007 from the NYSDOT Safety Information Management System (SIMS) for NY 27 from NY 112 (Medford Road) to Wading River Road. The 11-mile-long study corridor recorded 357 accidents, with 78 percent recorded at interchange segments and 22 percent along non-interchange segments.

Average annual accident rates were calculated for NY 27 interchange and non-interchange segments. Accident rates are expressed as the number of accidents per million vehicle miles traveled over the length of the roadway segment (Table 3-5), along with the New York statewide average accident rate for similar facilities of this type. The accident rates in the interchange segments were lower than the statewide average except for the NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and Hospital Road interchanges; the rates in the non-interchange segments were below the statewide rates.

Table 3-5: Accident Rates (Existing Conditions)

Ref. Marker Accident Locations

Base Year Annual Vehicle Miles

(Millions)

Total Accidents

(2005–2007)

Average Annual

Accident Rates per

MVM

Statewide Average Accident

Rates (2006–2007)

Accident Rate Ratio

From To Interchange Segments 1231 1241 NY 112 (Medford Ave) 22.6 92 1.36 1.12 1.21 1248 1252 Hospital Rd 10.1 49 1.61 1.12 1.44 1255 1260 Patchogue-Yaphank Ave (Sills Rd) 12.5 32 0.86 1.12 0.76 1265 1268 Station Rd 11.1 36 1.08 1.12 0.97 1284 1289 CR 21 (Old Horseblock Rd) 12.4 25 0.67 1.12 0.60 1304 1311 CR 46 (William Floyd Pkwy) 10.9 33 1.01 1.12 0.90 1341 1348 Wading River Rd. 5.9 11 0.62 1.12 0.56

Interchange Total 278 From To Non-Interchange Segments 1241 1248 NY 112 (Medford Ave to Hospital Rd) 19.1 6 0.10 0.92 0.11

1252 1255 Hospital Rd to Patchogue-Yaphank Ave (Sills Rd) 7.8 4 0.17 0.89 0.19

1260 1265 Sills Rd to Station Rd 9.4 9 0.32 0.89 0.36 1268 1284 Station Rd to CR 21 (Old Horseblock Rd) 33.2 13 0.13 0.89 0.15 1289 1304 CR 21 to CR 46 (William Floyd Pkwy) 31.0 17 0.18 0.89 0.21

1311 1341 CR 46 (William Floyd Pkwy) to Wading River Rd 34.2 30 0.29 0.89 0.33

Non-Interchange Total 79 NY 27 Study Corridor Total 357

Locations with the highest number of accidents were determined from the NYSDOT High Accident Locations Report, which includes data from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007. The highest number of accidents, 29, occurred along Sunrise Highway from NY 112 (Medford Avenue)-Hospital Road to CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road). NY 112 (Medford Avenue)-Hospital Road and Station Road were identified as Priority Investigation Locations.

The detailed accident data (included in the NY 27 Accident Analysis Report and tables provided in Appendix A.10) illustrate accident severity and conditions prevalent at the time of the incidents. All non-interchange data from Ocean Avenue to Medford Avenue were omitted from the final analysis because this area was just beyond the limits of the NY 27 study area. Of the 357 documented accidents in the study area from 2005 to 2007, 54 percent resulted in personal injury (with four fatalities), and 42 percent


3-13

resulted in property damage or were non-reportable. Dry conditions were present 82 percent of the time, which indicates that pavement skid resistance is generally not a problem. Furthermore, since 57 percent of the accidents occurred in daylight, it appears that lighting conditions were not a significant contributing factor. The breakdown of accidents by type indicates that the majority of the accidents was for other reasons (255, 75 percent) and fixed object collisions (70, 20 percent).

Projected Accidents, 2035 “No Build” Conditions Using the 2030–2035 “No Build” forecasts of peak-period and peak-hour traffic on each segment of the NY 27 study corridor, average annual daily traffic was estimated by assuming the same relationships as observed under base year (2008–2010) conditions. The base year segment accident rates were then used to estimate the expected number of annual accidents in 2035 (Table 3-6). A comparison of the average annual accidents from 2005–2007 with the projected 2035 No Build accidents indicates an expected 15 percent increase, consistent with the forecast traffic increases over that period.

Table 3-6: Accident Rates (2035 Forecast)

Ref. Marker Accident Locations

Forecast # Accidents, 2035 “No Build” (NB)

Length (miles)

2035 “No Build” AADT

2035 “No Build”

Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled

(Millions)

Base Year Average Annual

Accident Rate/MVM

Estimated 2035 “No

Build” Accidents

From To Interchange Segments 1231 1241 NY 112 (Medford Ave) 0.86 81,001 25 1.21 34 1248 1252 Hospital Rd 0.38 78,882 11 1.44 17 1255 1260 Patchogue-Yaphank Ave (Sills Rd) 0.53 67,541 13 0.76 11 1265 1268 Station Rd 0.54 64,025 13 0.97 14 1284 1289 CR 21 (Old Horseblock Rd) 0.59 65,754 14 0.60 9 1304 1311 CR 46 (William Floyd Pkwy) 0.65 57,867 14 0.90 14 1341 1348 Wading River Rd. 0.69 28,878 7 0.56 4

Interchange Total 104 From To Non-Interchange Segments

1241 1248 NY 112 (Medford Ave to Hospital Rd) 0.73 79,766 21 0.11 2

1252 1255 Hospital to Patchogue-Yaphank Ave (Sills Rd) 0.28 81,619 8 0.19 1

1260 1265 Sills Rd to Station Rd 0.38 74,521 10 0.36 3

1268 1284 Station Rd to CR 21 (Old Horseblock Rd) 1.52 67,001 37 0.15 5

1289 1304 CR 21 (Old Horseblock Rd) to CR 46 (William Floyd Pkwy) 1.53 65,075 36 0.21 7

1311 1341 CR 46 (William Floyd Pkwy) to Wading River Rd 2.62 52,125 50 0.33 15

Non-Interchange Total 33 NY 27 Study Corridor Total 137


3-14

3.2 Highway and Bridge Inventory

3.2.1 Roadway Classification NY 27 (Sunrise Highway), which traverses the south shore of Long Island, is designated a Principle Arterial Expressway, Class 12, under Federal Functional Classification. A portion of the roadway, east of CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) within the project limit, is included in the National Highway System and listed as an Access Highway to the National Network of Designated Truck Access Highways. (See the NY 27 Highway and Bridge Inventory Report, provided in Appendix A.11, for more details).

NYSDOT designates certain roads as routes for special dimension vehicles. Qualifying Highways—part of a national network—are those federally designated roads on which larger trucks are required to travel. (The federal role includes regulation of design standards and financial assistance on the construction of these facilities). Access Highways are an additional set of state-designated truck travel roads. NY 27 is more than 1 mile from the I-495 (Long Island Expressway), a Qualifying Highway. NY 27 is not part of the Strategic Highway Network. The following briefly describes a Qualifying Highway and an Access Highway:

· Qualifying Highway – A highway designated as part of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which allows certain vehicles (tractor trailer combinations greater than 65 feet, tractor with 28-foot tandem trailers, maxi-cubes, triple saddle mounts, stinger-steered auto carriers and boat transporters) and 53-foot trailers to use that highway and any other highway within 1 linear mile of the qualifying highway.

· Access Highway – A highway designated for use by Surface Transportation Assistance Act vehicles and 53-foot trailers. Unlike a Qualifying Highway, these vehicle combinations may not travel off the access highway for any distance. For local deliveries off this system, trucks are required to take the most direct route to their destination.

3.2.2 Maintenance The mainline roadways of NY 27 in the project area are owned and maintained by the State of New York. The service roads are governed by various arrangements of ownership and maintenance responsibilities shared between the State of New York, Suffolk County and the Town of Brookhaven. Intersecting streets are owned and maintained by Suffolk County or the Town of Brookhaven.

3.2.3 Existing Roadway Sections NY 27 is a limited access highway for the entire length of the study area. There are seven major interchanges and several discontinuous service road sections running along the north and south sides of the highway within the project area.

Travel Lane and Shoulders Within the project limits, NY 27 is generally a four-lane divided roadway with continuous left and right shoulders in each direction. The two eastbound and two westbound travel lanes are separated by a grass median with a typical width of 58 feet. Typical travel lane widths are 12 feet, with right and left shoulders of 10 feet and 2 feet, respectively. The 2-foot-wide left shoulder is only half of the width required for general freeways. The left and right mainline shoulders in both directions on NY 27 within the study area are not curbed. Both the north and south service roads have two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders. All ramps consist of a single lane with widths varying from 12 feet to 20 feet. The standard shoulder width requirement for ramps is 8 feet for the right shoulder and 3 feet for the left. Generally, roadside barriers are provided for the ramps in the project area with insufficient shoulder widths.


3-15

Recovery Widths A range of roadside objects, including trees, abutments, light fixtures, and utility poles, are present along the NY 27 mainline and ramps within the study area right-of-way. In general, while these obstructions are located outside the clear zone (unobstructed area beyond the edge of the traveled way), in locations where the recommended Basic Recovery Widths are not obtained,1

Roadway Alignment and Design Speed

heavy post, blocked-out guide rail has been installed. Such roadside recovery areas exist at various locations sporadically throughout the entire segment of NY 27 within the project area. In general, approximately 83 feet of right-of-way is provided on each side of the NY 27 mainline.

The terrain within the project limits is generally level, with grades ranging from a minimum of 0.5 percent to a maximum of 2.8 percent. All ramp grades are less than the recommended maximum of 6 percent and more than the recommended minimum of 0.3 percent. Generally, horizontal roadway curves on NY 27 are more than 10,000 feet, except for the curve near the Carmans River. The radius of this curve is approximately 8,600 feet, which is still within the minimum design standard (2,040 feet) for this type of facility.

The right-of-way width along the NY 27 mainline varies, but in general can be characterized as being 300 feet wide. The posted highway speed limit on NY 27 in this section is 55 miles per hour. Based on the spot speed survey results (see Section 3.1.2), a design speed of 70 miles per hour should be provided for any new main roadway construction. Most of the ramps conform to the design criteria of 60 miles per hour, except for the cloverleaf ramps at the CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) interchange and CR 16 (Horseblock Road) interchange.

Roadway Geometry In general, the NY 27 mainline features a normal crown slope, with 1.5 percent to 2 percent cross slope on the travel lanes provided to aid in drainage. The ramps with sharp curves are super-elevated (banked) in accordance with NYSDOT design standards. Except for the sections of NY 27 between entrance and exit ramps (weaving sections) at the CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) interchange, all of the existing acceleration lanes are at or exceed the minimum length of 1,000 feet; however, the existing deceleration lanes are generally less than 700 feet and do not conform to the recommended minimum length of 800 feet for these lanes.

Existing Pavement Conditions As per field visits in the fall of 2008, pavement and shoulder conditions are generally satisfactory, although the number of localized pavement deficiencies (cracks, spalls) on the travel lanes gradually increased from west to the east within the study area. Originally, the NY 27 mainline roadway pavement throughout the study area consisted of 9-inch-thick Portland cement concrete slab. Subsequently, the roadway pavement was overlaid with 3-inch-thick asphalt concrete between Station Road and CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway).

Abutting Highway Segments West of the project limit, NY 27 is a six-lane access-limited expressway, featuring similar characteristics as the four-lane roadways within the project limits. The section of highway from CR 97 (Nicolls Road) to CR 83 (North Ocean Avenue) was reconstructed in the 1990s and is generally in good condition. East of the project limit, NY 27 is a four-lane, limited-access expressway, similar to the four-lane section within the project limits. The asphalt shoulders in this section were reconstructed in the past six years and are generally in good condition. Travel lanes, consisting of cement concrete pavement, are in fair condition and have not reached their useable service life.

1 NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 10, Table 10-1


3-16

3.2.4 Existing Bridges Within the study area, the bridges along NY 27 are in satisfactory to good condition, and no significant rehabilitation work has been scheduled (Table 3-7). All 12 bridges within the study limits meet or exceed the minimum vertical clearance limits of 12 feet established for existing bridges in accordance with the NYSDOT Bridge Manual.

Table 3-7: Existing Bridge Inventory

Bridge Location Year Built

Number of Lanes

Existence of Sidewalk Most Recent Inspection Results

Medford Avenue over NY 27 1992 6 Yes New condition with minor deterioration Hospital Road over NY 27 1959 2 No Functioned as designed, some minor deterioration

Patchogue-Yaphank Road over NY 27 1959/ 1976 4 Yes

East span – New condition with minor deterioration West span – Functioned as designed, some minor deterioration

Station Road over NY 27 1959 2 Yes, narrow, west side Functioned as designed, some minor deterioration

Horse Block Road over NY 27 1960 6 Yes New condition with minor deterioration NY 27 over Carmans River 1959 4 No Functioned as designed, some minor deterioration Victory Avenue over Carmans River 1959 2 No Functioned as designed, some minor deterioration William Floyd Parkway over NY 27 1963 6 Yes New condition with minor deterioration

Winters Drive over NY 27 1963 2 Yes Functioned as designed, satisfactory condition with minor deterioration

NY 27 over Barnes Road 1963 4 No New condition with minor deterioration

Moriches-Middle Island Road over NY 27 1963 2 Yes Functioned as designed, satisfactory condition, with minor deterioration

Wading River Road over NY 27 1963 4 Yes Functioned as designed, with minor deterioration

3.3 Transit

3.3.1 Suffolk Transit Existing Services Within the primary and secondary study areas, fixed route bus service is provided primarily by Suffolk Transit. Figure 3-13 presents a map of transit services in the area.

Suffolk Transit operates 13 bus routes within the study area: eight Local Routes (S40, S54, S61, S63, S66, S68, S71, and S90), which operate between various communities and provide connections throughout the service area; one Express Route (Suffolk Clipper), which uses the I-495 high-occupancy vehicle lanes and serves the concentration of jobs in the western portion of Suffolk County; and four Feeder Routes (7A, 7B, 7D, and 7E), which are local in nature and are used primarily to extend coverage of the transit system.


3-17

FIGURE 3-13: EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES

Source: Suffolk Transit and MTA System Maps


3-18

In 2008—the last full year for which data was available—Suffolk Transit had an annual system-wide bus ridership of approximately 6.3 million passenger trips throughout Suffolk County. Table 3-8 provides annual ridership data for each of the Suffolk Transit bus routes in the study area. Table 3-9 provides this ridership data for the average weekday and the average Saturday; however, it should be noted that data in Table 3-9 was provided only for the year 2006, with the exception of the Suffolk Clipper, for which 2008 data is shown. These ridership statistics are for the entire bus route and not solely for those portions of the bus route in the study area.

The operating hours for the various Suffolk Transit bus routes range from 5:30 AM to 8:30 PM, Monday through Saturday. Typically, regular weekday schedules are in effect on Saturdays. Suffolk Transit service does not operate on Sundays.

Table 3-8: Annual Boarding Passenger Counts (2008 Suffolk Transit)

Route Annual Ridership S40 332,006 S54 346,856 S61 214,794 S63 130,506 S66 277,882 S68 57,933 S71 52,124 S90 17,800 7A 36,691 7B 41,636

7D/7E 32,999 Suffolk Clipper 24,133

Source: Suffolk Transit

Table 3-9: Daily Boarding Passenger Counts (2006 Suffolk Transit)

Route Average Weekday Average Saturday S40 1,165 535 S54 1,415 497 S61 854 378 S63 529 365 S66 1,041 666 S68 223 139 S71 186 57 S90 66 55 7A 121 98 7B 134 136 7D 28 30 7E 84 64

Suffolk Clipper 95 no service Source: Suffolk Transit

The frequencies of service (the headway) range from 40 minutes during peak periods (approximately 6:30 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM) to more than 2 hours during off-peak periods. The Suffolk Clipper is in service during the peak weekday AM and PM commuter periods (6:30 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:15 PM to 6:15 PM). Its service frequency is every 35 to 40 minutes in the AM peak period and every 15 to 20 minutes in the PM peak period.


3-19

The following Suffolk Transit bus routes serve MTA LIRR stations in the secondary study area to allow for intermodal connection opportunities:

Long Island Rail Road Station Location Suffolk Transit Bus Routes Patchogue Station S54, S61, S63, 7A, 7B Bellport Station S66, S68, 7B Mastic-Shirley Station S66, S68, S71, 7D, 7E Medford Station S61 Yaphank Station S71 Source: Suffolk Transit and MTA System Maps

Support/Storage Facilities There are no support or storage facilities for Suffolk Transit in the study area. In addition, according to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s Transportation Improvement Program (2008–2012), none are planned for the next 5 years in the study area. The 2008–2012 program allocates $4.59 million for the continued support of the Suffolk Clipper (i.e., the “Suffolk Express Commuter Bus Service”).

Future Projects Suffolk Transit is currently preparing a Comprehensive Bus Route Analysis and Service Development Plan. This plan is described in detail in the NY 27 Transit Report provided in Appendix A.12. Suffolk Transit’s plan is distinct from the proposed bus transit improvements to the Suffolk Transit system being proposed as part of the Sunrise Highway Corridor Sustainable Transportation Study and described in Chapter 4.

3.3.2 Other Bus Operators One other bus service operates in the secondary study area. The Village of Patchogue operates a local bus system within the village that provides service on four routes Monday through Friday between 9:00 AM and 4:30 PM. In 2008, the annual ridership on this service was 1,922 boardings (Figure 3-14).

3.3.3 Park-and-Ride Facilities Existing Services There is one public transportation facility located within the primary study area, the Patchogue Park-and-Ride Lot, with approximately 325 spaces. Located at Exit 53 of NY 27 (Sunrise Highway), just east of NY 112 (Medford Avenue), it is a carpool-staging lot intended to support and encourage carpools. It is not served directly by any public transit service.

Within the secondary study area, a park-and-ride lot is located along the I-495 (Long Island Expressway) at Exit 63 in Medford. It has approximately 320 parking spaces. This park-and-ride lot is directly served by the Suffolk Clipper and is the Suffolk Clipper’s eastern terminal.

Future Projects According to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s Transportation Improvement Program (2008–2012), no new park-and-ride facilities are planned in the study area.


3-20

FIGURE 3-14: VILLAGE OF PATCHOGUE SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE

Source: Village of Patchogue

August 2011 DRAFT Report P.I.N. 0059.08

3-21

3.3.4 MTA Long Island Rail Road Existing Services The secondary study area contains two west-east LIRR routes. The northernmost is the Ronkonkoma Branch, which passes completely through the secondary study area with station stops in Medford and Yaphank. The southernmost, the Montauk Branch, traverses the south shore of the secondary study area, with station stops in Patchogue, Bellport, and Mastic-Shirley.

Railroad station usage for the five LIRR stations in the secondary study area varies greatly (Table 3-10). Available bus transit connections were described in Section 3.3.1. Greater detail regarding each of the LIRR stations is provided in the NY 27 Transit Report provided in Appendix A.12.

Table 3-10: Station Passenger Counts

Station Average Weekday Weekend (Saturday and Sunday Combined)

WB On WB Off EB On EB Off Total WB On WB Off EB On EB Off Total Ronkonkoma Branch Medford 24 0 0 17 41 2 3 0 5 10 Yaphank 6 0 0 3 9 0 2 8 0 10 Montauk Branch Patchogue 920 37 167 1,203 2,327 643 144 478 645 1,910 Bellport 29 0 1 17 47 29 0 0 13 42 Mastic-Shirley 223 13 9 195 440 227 18 31 124 400 Source: MTA Long Island Rail Road, 2006

The following briefly describes the parking utilization and service frequencies at the LIRR stations in the secondary study area, as provided by the MTA LIRR:

· Medford Station (Ronkonkoma Branch) – Approximately 37 percent of the station’s 30 parking spaces are used regularly. Service frequency is four trains every weekday (with only one during the peak period in the peak direction of service), and two trains per day on weekends.

· Yaphank Station (Ronkonkoma Branch) – Only 2 percent of the station’s 42 parking spaces are used on a regular basis. Service frequency is four trains every weekday (with only one during the peak period in the peak direction of service), and two trains per day on weekends—the same as at Medford Station.

· Patchogue Station (Montauk Branch) – Approximately 32 percent of the station’s 652 parking spaces are used regularly. This station has accommodations for bicycles and taxi service. Service frequency is approximately every 25 minutes during the weekday peak periods in the peak direction of service and every 75 minutes at other times.

· Bellport Station (Montauk Branch) – Approximately 14 percent of the station’s 35 parking spaces are used regularly. Service frequency is approximately every 35 to 60 minutes during the weekday peak periods in the peak direction of service and every 3 hours at other times on weekdays, with only five trains per day on weekends.

· Mastic-Shirley Station (Montauk Branch) – Approximately 49 percent of the station’s 223 parking spaces are used regularly. Service frequency is approximately every 30 minutes during the weekday peak periods in the peak direction of service and approximately every 2.5 hours at other times on weekdays, with service operating approximately every 3 hours on weekends.


3-22

Support/Storage Facilities There are no support or storage facilities for the LIRR in the study area. According to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s Transportation Improvement Program (2008–2012), no facilities are planned in the study area.

Future Projects The LIRR is currently constructing the East Side Access project, which will allow the LIRR to access Grand Central Terminal on the east side of Manhattan from the Sunnyside area in Queens. The new LIRR terminal will be located beneath Grand Central Terminal, and current planning calls for it to be served by electric multiple-unit trains; therefore, passengers traveling from the five stations in the secondary study area will likely be required to transfer to a train in the electrified zone to access Grand Central Terminal. The environmental impact statement prepared for the East Side Access project estimated the ridership at each LIRR station in the year 2020. However, the ridership at each station was estimated only for the weekday morning peak period and not for the entire service day or for weekend and holiday service patterns. The estimated ridership for the LIRR stations in the secondary study area is presented in Table 3-11.

Table 3-11: Station Passenger Count Forecasts (Estimated 2020 MTA LIRR – Weekday Morning Peak Period)

Station Ridership Ronkonkoma Branch

Medford 29 Yaphank 32

Montauk Branch Patchogue 810 Bellport 16 Mastic-Shirley 524

Source: Long Island Rail Road East Side Access Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Ridership Forecasting Results Report, March 2001

3.3.5 Demand Responsive Paratransit Existing Services Suffolk Transit provides a complementary demand-responsive paratransit service for individuals with disabilities called Suffolk County Accessible Transportation. The provision of this service is mandated by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), which also mandates the maximum fares that are charged and where service must be provided. Eligibility to use Suffolk County Accessible Transportation is determined based on guidelines contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Suffolk County Accessible Transportation provides door-to-door transportation for those who are eligible, as well as their caregivers and companions. Trips are made by reservation.

Support/Storage Facilities and Future Projects There are no support or storage facilities for Suffolk County Accessible Transportation in the study area. In addition, according to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s Transportation Improvement Program (2008–2012), none are planned for the next 5 years in the study area.

3.3.6 Marine Existing Services Ferry service from the secondary study area and traversing the Great South Bay is generally provided seasonally between Patchogue and both Davis Park and Watch Hill, which are both on Fire Island (see previous Figure 3-13). These ferries are operated by the Davis Park Ferry Company. Ferries carry


3-23

passengers starting in early spring until late fall, depending on the destination on Fire Island being served.

Davis Park – Operates from the Sandspit Marina (located at 80 Brightwood Street in Patchogue) to Davis Park, which is part of the Fire Island National Seashore. This route serves passengers only, and no vehicles are carried. At the Sandspit Marina there is free parking for residents of the Town of Brookhaven (non-residents must pay a parking fee).

The Sandspit Marina is not served by Suffolk Transit or by the Village of Patchogue’s Shuttle Bus service. It is located about 1 mile from the LIRR Patchogue Station.

Watch Hill – Operates from the Watch Hill Ferry Terminal (located at 160 West Avenue in Patchogue) to Watch Hill, which is also part of the Fire Island National Seashore. This route serves passengers only, and no vehicles are carried. At the Watch Hill Ferry Terminal there is free parking, since this facility is operated by the National Park Service.

The Watch Hill Ferry Terminal is within walking distance (about ¼ mile) of the LIRR Patchogue Station and therefore is within walking distance of the various Suffolk Transit bus routes serving the station (S54, S61, S63, 7A, and 7B) as well as those serving downtown Patchogue (S40, S66, and S68). The terminal is also within walking distance (within one block) of Route 2 of the Village of Patchogue’s Shuttle Bus service.

Future Projects According to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s Transportation Improvement Program (2008–2012), the National Park Service will spend $2 million to reconstruct the Patchogue Transportation Center/Ferry Terminal to address previously documented health and safety needs.

3.3.7 Aviation Existing Services The secondary study area contains a single airport: Brookhaven Airport (or Brookhaven Calabro Airport) in Shirley, New York. It is classified as a General Aviation airport by New York State, meaning it does not service commercial flights. Long Island MacArthur Airport, located in Ronkonkoma west of the secondary study area, is the nearest airport serving commercial flights as well as general aviation and freight.

Future Projects According to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s Transportation Improvement Program (2008–2012), no new aviation facilities are planned in the study area.

3.4 Bicycle and Shared-Use Facilities

Existing (as of 2009) on-road bicycle facilities include CR 21 (Rock Point Yaphank Road) from I-495 to CR 16 (Horseblock Road) across NY 27 to CR 80 (Montauk Highway) and Smith Road south of CR 80 (Montauk Highway). Planned additions to this network include designating existing unsigned routes: Station Road from north of I-495 across NY 27 to CR 80 (Montauk Highway) in Bellport, Victory Avenue from River Road to CR 16 (Horseblock Road) south to CR 80 (Montauk Highway), and sections of CR 80 (Montauk Highway), CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sill Road), and NY 112 (Medford Road) north of NY 27. These additions will be implemented within the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, or NYSDOT on their respective jurisdictions. A shared-use path is planned on River Road from Victory Avenue to Moriches Road just south of I-495. (See Figure 3-15 for these facilities.) There are no existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities located within the NY 27 right-of-way within the study corridor, and all non-motorized travel is prohibited from the main roadways.

April011 DRAFT Report P.I.N. 0059.08

3-24

FIGURE 3-15: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES (2009)


3-25

3.5 Goods Movement

3.5.1 Vehicular Corridors NY 27 is one of the two major freight corridors used to bring goods in and out of Long Island. Other major corridors traversing the secondary study area north-south or east-west are I-495 (Long Island Expressway), NY 112 (Medford Avenue), CR 83 (North Ocean Avenue), and CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway), which are classified as principal arterials. CR 97 (Nicolls Road) is also a principal arterial, but it is located outside the western boundary of the study area. Minor arterials within the secondary study area include CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sill Road), CR 99 (Woodside Avenue), CR 16 (Horseblock Road), Station Road, Moriches-Middle Island Road, Weeks Avenue, and Wading River Road.

3.5.2 Goods Movement and Freight I-495 (Long Island Expressway) is one of the major highways supporting goods movement and freight transported in and out of Long Island and is used for warehouse and distribution trips.

In terms of freight volume, NY 27 is used less than I-495 (Long Island Expressway), serving mostly distribution and interplant trip needs. Data presented in A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region, prepared by Cambridge Systematics, indicates that the volume of freight carried by the LIE is more than five times greater than the volume of freight carried by Sunrise Highway. In addition, the NYMTC Regional Freight Plan indicates that the LIE carries an AADT of 160,000 vehicles with commercial vehicles accounting for 15% to 45% of the total volumes, depending on the time of day. By comparison, Sunrise Highway carries an AADT of 72,000 vehicles with the highest percentage of commercial vehicles at about 10%.

Distribution and interplant moves include trips from distribution centers or warehouses to retail stores and offices, or between plants and terminals. The most freight activity occurs to the west of the study area, in western Suffolk County and Nassau County.

Freight transportation mode split for Suffolk County is shown in Figure 3-16. As indicated, more than 75 percent is moved by truck, while an insignificant percentage is moved by both air and rail.

FIGURE 3-16: FREIGHT MODE SPLIT (SUFFOLK COUNTY)


3-26

The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s Regional Freight Plan has identified Suffolk County as one of the high freight-intensity counties in the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council region.

The economic growth forecasted in the 10-county New York Metropolitan Transportation Council region is expected to significantly increase the volume of freight moved in the region. Regional (Metropolitan Region) commodity flows were expected to grow from 333 million annual tons in 1998 to 490.5 million annual tons in 2025, a 47 percent increase. New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s projections for Suffolk County, using 1998 as the base year, forecast about a 50 percent increase in freight tonnage flow by 2025. Modes of movement were not expected to change significantly with highway-based modes dominating.

3.5.3 Goods Movement by Truck Truck Freight Goods movement by truck plays an important role in the freight transportation system throughout Long Island. It is responsible for key linkages between businesses, other modes, and customers. Capacity, service, and other impediments that affect the movement of commodities between their origins and destinations undermine the network’s ability to support the area’s competitive position. The efficiency of the area’s truck freight network is also compromised by issues related to limited alternate routes, designated routes, height/size/weight clearances, and limited service roads.

Truck Routes According to United States and New York State law, New York State Department of Transportation designates certain roads within the state as routes for special dimension vehicles. These roads are referred to a Qualifying Highways and Access Highways. (See Section 3.2.1, Roadway Classification for the definitions of both.)

The only Qualifying Highway in the study area is I-495 (Long Island Expressway). Specific segments of NY 27, NY 112 (Medford Avenue), CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway), CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road), CR 16 (Horseblock Road), CR 80 (Montauk Highway), McGraw Street and Long Island Avenue are designated Access Highways. CR 97 (Nicolls Road) is an Access Highway located just outside of the secondary study area’s western border between I-495 (Long Island Expressway) and NY 27. Further information regarding the designated qualifying and access roadways within the study area is available in the NY 27 Highway and Bridge Inventory Report, provided in Appendix A.11.

Major Facilities Major facilities related to goods movement and freight transported by truck include warehouses, distribution centers, and truck terminals.

In 2001, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council issued a report on truck terminals and a warehouse survey (conducted in 1999).

Most of these facilities are located in the western part of Suffolk County, outside of the study areas, in the areas of higher goods movement and freight activity. Among the facilities surveyed in Suffolk County, only three facilities still exist and are located within or just outside of the secondary study area. There is a fourth facility (UPS Suffolk Hub), which is located in Farmingville, just outside of the secondary study area. This facility was identified in New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s Freight Facilities and Systems Inventory report issued in 2000. There were no other facilities within the secondary study area identified in the report.


3-27

Figure 3-17 shows the location of the four facilities within and adjacent to the study areas identified in these reports. Figure 3-18 shows locations of large shopping centers in the study areas. These include:

· Sunwave Plaza Patchogue (Patchogue) · Medford Shopping Center (Medford) · Bellport Outlet Shopping Center (Bellport) · Sunshine Square (Medford) · Shirley Mall (Shirley) · Shirley Shopping Center (Shirley)


3-28

FIGURE 3-17: FREIGHT FACILITIES WITHIN SECONDARY STUDY AREA

Source: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council: Truck Terminal and Warehouse Survey; Freight Facilities and System Inventory Report


3-29

FIGURE 3-18: SHOPPING CENTERS

Source: Research on maps.google.com


3-30

3.5.4 Goods Movement by Rail Rail Freight on Long Island The MTA LIRR owns and maintains virtually all of the conventional railroad lines on Long Island. It was recommended that the LIRR cease direct operations of its freight services and allow a private short-line railroad to operate freight services over the LIRR on a trackage rights/franchise basis. The New York and Atlantic Railway won the freight rights and commenced operations in May 1997 on the LIRR tracks.

New York and Atlantic Railway is a subsidiary of Anacostia Rail Holdings—a holding company for operation of short-line railroads and ancillary equipment and services firms. To transport goods beyond Long Island, New York and Atlantic Railway interchanges cars with other railroads like Canadian Pacific, CSX Transportation, and Providence & Worcester at its Fresh Pond Yard in Queens, and New York Cross Harbor and Norfolk Southern in Brooklyn. New York Cross Harbor operates a car float service between Brooklyn and Greenville, New Jersey. Figure 3-19 shows New York and Atlantic Railway lines and freight stations on Long Island.

FIGURE 3-19: NEW YORK AND ATLANTIC RAILWAY LINES AND FREIGHT STATIONS (LONG ISLAND)

Since the beginning of its operations, New York and Atlantic Railway has substantially increased its freight volume from approximately 14,000 carloads in its first year to approximately 20,000 carloads. New York and Atlantic Railway operates 11 locomotives and 60 gondola cars, transporting goods and waste and scrap materials over 269 route miles on Long Island. These include farm products, food, lumber and wood, nonmetallic minerals, pulp, paper, chemicals, petroleum or coal products, clay, concrete, glass, stone products, waste and scrap materials.

Major Customers Within the secondary study area, New York and Atlantic Railway operates on two lines: Main/Ronkonkoma line (along I-495) and Montauk line (below Montauk Highway). There are six major customers located within or just outside of the secondary study area: Blue Links (Georgia Pacific), Brookhaven National Laboratory, Gershow Recycling, Prima Asphalt, Sherwood Lumber, and Triangle Building Supply. Additional information regarding freight volumes as of 2005 is available in the NY 27 Goods Movement Report in Appendix A.13.


3-31

Gershow Recycling, a processor of ferrous, non-ferrous metals, and paper products, is located throughout Long Island with over 750 employees at six locations. Its Medford facility is within the secondary study area at 71 Peconic Avenue. Prima Asphalt is located just outside of the secondary study area at 615 Furrows Road in Holtsville, and manufactures asphalt mixtures and blocks.

New York and Atlantic Railway Facilities New York and Atlantic Railway transload facilities are located in Farmingdale, Huntington Station, Maspeth, Long Island City, and Yaphank. Only the Yaphank facility is within the secondary study area. It is operated by Bluelinx Corporation in Yaphank and provides services such as short-term limited storage, local trucking, crossdocking, box and flat unloading, and container van unloading. The facility’s capacity is 10 rail car spots.

Public delivery tracks are located in a number of municipalities and hamlets in Long Island including Yaphank and Medford. Public delivery tracks are open to the public for loading and unloading from truck to rail or rail to truck.

A few available sites conveniently located adjacent to the LIRR tracks, all zoned L1-Industrial, have been identified as potential sites for future New York and Atlantic Railway customer locations. Only one of these sites is located within the secondary study area, at CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road)-Old Dock Road in Yaphank.

Figure 3-20 shows New York and Atlantic Railway freight stations, customers, and other facilities and sites described above.


3-32

FIGURE 3-20: NEW YORK AND ATLANTIC RAILWAY FACILITIES (LONG ISLAND)

Source: New York and Atlantic Railway


3-33

3.5.5 Water Freight On Long Island’s south shore, only one ferry immediately to the south of the study area provides freight service: the Patchogue–Davis Park ferry. Departing from Patchogue Bay in the Town of Brookhaven, the ferries transport passengers and freight to two communities on Fire Island—Davis Park and Watch Hill. The boats run from mid-March through Thanksgiving.

The ferry operates seven boats and a barge for special, bulky freight. The types of goods transported vary depending on the local economy, but normally include building materials, food for restaurants and other freight. The boats run every hour while the barge runs when needed. The amount of freight transported on the boats or on the barge varies but is normally insignificant (normally up to 200 boxes). In fact, in 2008, the barge was not run at all. With the barge weight capacity of 30 tons, there is obviously excess capacity available. The seven regular boats also have extra capacity.

To the west of the study area, outside of the Town of Brookhaven, there are two ferries that also provide freight service to Fire Island: the Sayville Ferry in Sayville, and Fire Island Ferries in Bay Shore. The majority of goods transported by these ferries do not originate from within the secondary study area.

3.5.6 Air Freight Brookhaven Airport in Shirley is the only airport located within the secondary study area. Spadaro Airport and Lufker Airport in East Moriches are two other airports located immediately east of the secondary study area. These airports offer sightseeing tours, flight training, skydiving, and similar services. None of these three airports offers freight service. The nearest airport that provides freight service is Long Island MacArthur airport located in Ronkonkoma west of the secondary study area.

3.6 Municipal Partner Reports and Plans

At the outset of this study, an inventory and review of earlier, relevant studies and planning efforts was conducted. These are summarized below. (See Appendix A.14 for copies of these reports.)

Town of Brookhaven Master Plan 2030. The Town of Brookhaven’s ongoing master planning process has developed nine Brookhaven 2030 Fundamental Principals. These are:

· Preserve and enhance open space and community character; ensure environmental protection.

· Build consensus with residents, community leaders, stakeholders and public agencies.

· Supply housing opportunities that are fair, diverse and equitably distributed.

· Redirect growth to areas served by infrastructure, revitalize downtowns, and establish pedestrian-oriented centers that have a sense of place.

· Efficiently expand community facilities and services to promote healthy communities.

· Expand the range of transportation options.

· Ensure a sustainable tax base through business and job development.

· Provide incentives and enforcement to implement the principles of the comprehensive plan.

· Raise the public’s environmental consciousness by forging “green” policies and actions addressing global warming issues through sustainable communities.

Design Report for the Reconstruction of CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) from Long Island Expressway to Moriches Middle Island Road (December 2008 by Dunn Engineering Associates for Suffolk County Department of Public Works)


3-34

· Existing conditions survey indicated minimal delays, with the most significant impacts existing at the congested intersections at both ends of the corridor.

· In the future “No Build” Alternative, estimated travel times were projected to be substantially higher during the Weekday Northbound AM Peak Period and Weekday Southbound PM Peak Period.

· LOS analyses indicated that CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and Moriches Middle Island Road operated at LOS E or F.

Transportation Project Report for the Reconstruction of CR 80 (Montauk Highway) from CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) to Mastic Road (September 2004 by County of Suffolk, New York for New York State Department of Transportation) · The report stated that neither the Suffolk County Department of Public Works nor the Town of

Brookhaven had active plans to reconstruct or widen abutting highway segments within 20 years of the report’s published date. The Town of Brookhaven was conducting a study of the adequacy of routes off the Mastic peninsula, in which one scheme would provide for a crossing of the LIRR at Hawthorne Street.

· The 1999 existing conditions indicated that low speeds along CR 80 (Montauk Highway) westbound between CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and Grand Avenue were the result of high stopped time delays at CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and the short distance between the signalized intersections of CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and Grand Avenue. On weekends, CR 80 (Montauk Highway) eastbound delays between CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and Barnes Road were the result of heavy shopping center traffic.

· The LITP 2000 Study model was used to determine the level of attractiveness for future roadway improvements to the NY 27 (Sunrise Highway) corridor, which included either construction of a south service road or an exit ramp from Sunrise Highway eastbound to Barnes Road. The result was a low level of trips attracted from the CR 80 (Montauk Highway) corridor, contrary to the public feedback generated from a survey indicating that more than half would consider using the improvements.

Expanded Project Proposal for Improvements to CR 80 (Montauk Highway) between New York State NY 112 in the Village of Patchogue and CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road) in East Patchogue (June 1997 by L.K. Mclean Associates for Suffolk County Department of Public Works) · The project proposed widening key intersections and resurfacing CR 80 (Montauk Highway). The “No

Build” Alternative did not meet the project goals and objectives. The “Build” Alternative best addressed the capacity and safety issues encountered within the area. Key features of this alternative included left turn lanes at all signalized intersections; a continuous center median left turn lane between Bay Avenue and Phyllis Drive; two eastbound thru lanes and one westbound thru lane between Grove Avenue and Conklin Avenue; four travel lanes with a center median between Phyllis Drive and CR 101; increased side street capacity at NY 112, Grove Avenue, and CR 36; right-of-way acquisitions; and the removal of certain on-street parking locations.

· Right-of-way acquisition locations:

Northeast corner of the NY 112 (Medford Avenue) intersection

West side of Grove Avenue

Northwest corner of the Phyllis Drive intersection

Northeast corner of the Lake Avenue intersection

North side west of CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road), between the eastern end of the Swan Commons Shopping Center and McDonald’s


3-35

· Removal of on-street parking locations:

East and west sides of CR 80 (Montauk Highway) west of Bay Avenue in the vicinity of the intersection

South side of CR 80 (Montauk Highway) from west of Grove Avenue to Conklin Avenue

North side of CR 80 (Montauk Highway) west of Phyllis Drive

· Most of the improvements recommended by this study have been implemented with the exception of the two eastbound thru lanes between Grove Avenue and Conklin Avenue; it currently operates as one eastbound thru lane with on-street parking and one middle left turn lane. Additionally, no right-of-way has been provided on the west side of Grove Avenue, or on the northeast corner of the Lake Avenue intersection. Lastly, on-street parking has not been removed on the northeast corner within the vicinity of the CR 80 (Montauk Highway) west of Bay Avenue intersection, nor has it been removed on the north side of CR 80 (Montauk Highway) west of Phyllis Drive.

Executive Summary Draft of the Roadway Evacuation Study: Hamlets of Shirley, Mastic and Mastic Beach (March 2009 by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (GPI) for the Town of Brookhaven’s Department of Planning, Environment and Land Management, Division of Traffic Safety) · The primary purpose and goal of the study was to identify infrastructure improvement requirements

for successful and expeditious evacuation of residents of the Mastic/Shirley Peninsula. The study recommended capacity improvements on Sunrise Highway including entrance ramps (westbound ramps from north service road, west of Barnes Road, and west of Titmus Drive), and a CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) shoulder-use lane. The study also made infrastructure recommendations, information dissemination and outreach, and emergency operations planning.


4-1

CHAPTER 4 Alternatives Development 4.1 Transportation Improvement Concepts

Various transportation improvement concepts were developed that would provide sustainable transportation solutions to address the identified Sunrise Highway corridor deficiencies and needs, including transportation demand management, transportation systems management, and roadway safety and operations improvements, as discussed in the following sections.

4.1.1 Transportation Demand Management Transportation demand management aims to reduce peak-period vehicle trips by encouraging the use of high-occupancy modes, 2

· Commuter ridesharing programs

non-motorized modes, and alternative work arrangements. Transportation demand management encompasses strategies that manage travel demand, including:

· High-occupancy vehicle treatments

· New and improved transit routes and schedules

· Bicycle and pedestrian facilities

The specific transportation demand management concepts evaluated and recommended for the Sunrise Highway corridor, potentially implementable by study area state and local transportation agencies, include new bicycle and pedestrian facilities, new and extended express bus routes, and advanced traveler information. These are described in the following sections.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities The proposed “Sunrise Greenway,” developed with the Brookhaven Bicycle Advisory Committee, will run along the north side of NY 27 from CR 19 (Waverly Avenue) to Titmus Drive/Winters Drive and will consist of four types of facilities:

· Class I Shared-Use Path: A path for multiple users including bicyclists, pedestrians, roller bladers, etc., physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic either within an existing right-of-way or on a completely new location;

· Class I Bike Path: A path for the exclusive use of bicyclists, physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic either within an existing right-of-way or on a completely new location;

· Class II Bike Lane: A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists; and

· Class III Bike Route: A shared right-of-way identified only by signing. Bike routes are proposed along low speed, low volume roadways where there is insufficient width to provide bicycle lanes.

A shared-use path (Class I) will start east of the projects limits from the existing on-road bicycle route on Waverly Avenue to just west of CR 21 (Rock Point Yaphank Road). The shared-use path is proposed adjacent to the existing or proposed service roads and along its own path through wooded areas. The On-Road (Class II) Bike Lanes will start at the existing north service road just west of Yaphank Avenue (CR 21) and will end at Titmus Drive/Winters Drive. The On-Road (Class III) Bike Route (Shared Roadway) will cross over NY 27 and will join with the proposed bicycle route on Titmus Drive (Town of Brookhaven), connecting to downtown Mastic. An existing and proposed bicycle network map as well as

2 Smart Growth Transportation Guidelines: An ITE Recommended Practice, 2010


4-2

three illustrations showing the two shared-use path treatments and the on-road bike lanes are shown in Figure 4-1

The shared-use path is a proposed two lane bi-directional bicycle and pedestrian facility. In general, the proposed path will be 12 feet wide, consisting of two 6-foot lanes; however, there are localized segments where the shared-use path will be reduced to 10 feet where the existing right-of-way is constrained. When the shared-use path is adjacent to either new or existing service roads, there will be a 2.5-foot utility strip and new concrete curbing. The design of the shared-use path will differ slightly under the collector-distributor road and continuous service road alternatives; however, the limits for the shared-use path will remain the same for each proposed alternative. Typical sections for the proposed shared-use path are shown on Figure 4-2.

In general, the proposed shared-use path will consist of a full depth, asphalt pavement section on-grade (see Figure 4-2). Because of the existence of a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation-mapped wetland located between Station Road and Yaphank Avenue (Sta. 1507+30 to Sta. 1570+80), a pedestrian bridge is required to cross the depressed terrain and to limit impacts to the natural ecology. The bridge would most likely consist of a pre-fabricated, steel-truss style structure with a clear span of approximately 50 feet.

The on-road bicycle lanes will be 5 feet wide on both the eastbound and westbound travel lanes of the north service road. An acrylic, color coating, specifically designed for hot-mix asphalt pavements, is proposed to clearly define and delineate these bicycle lanes.


4-3

FIGURE 4-1: BICYCLE ROUTE LOCATIONS MAP AND SHARED-USE PATH EXAMPLES


4-4

FIGURE 4-2: TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR SHARED-USE PATH (SEPARATED FROM AND ADJACENT TO TRAVEL LANES)


4-5

Proposals for Future Suffolk Transit Service

Suffolk Clipper Proposal in the NY 27 Study Area Suffolk Transit’s Comprehensive Bus Route Analysis and Service Development Plan suggested a number of changes to the Suffolk Transit system and all bus routes. None of the proposed changes were to the Suffolk Clipper. However, a proposal initiated in this NY 27 study would be to extend the Suffolk Clipper east so that it also serves the existing park-and-ride lot located at Exit 53 of NY 27 (Sunrise Highway), adjacent to NY 112 (Medford Avenue). It would then continue east to serve a possible new park-and-ride lot near the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station, using either the main roadway lanes or high-occupancy vehicle lanes under consideration for NY 27 (Sunrise Highway), as shown in Figure 4-3. Greater detail regarding this proposal is provided in the NY 27 Transit Report in Appendix A.12.

The advantages of this proposal are: · It would leverage existing infrastructure investments by using park-and-ride lots that either already

exist or may be relatively easy to modify. · It could use potential new general purpose or high-occupancy vehicle lanes on NY 27. · It is a straightforward “end-on” extension of an existing commuter express bus service that may be

easily modified with minimal disruption to existing passengers. · It would connect the Mastic-Shirley area with employment opportunities along NY 110 (Broadhollow

Road) as well as at the Hauppauge Industrial Park. · It would allow commuters from the Mastic-Shirley area to drive or take a local bus to the LIRR Mastic-

Shirley Station and then enjoy a “one-seat ride” to employers along the NY 110 (Broadhollow Road) corridor (as well as at the Hauppauge Industrial Park).

The primary disadvantage of this proposal is related to cost, as the longer route would require additional revenue hours of service should it be desired to maintain the same frequency of service.

Proposed Frequency and Span of Service – The Suffolk Clipper service currently provides three westbound trips during the weekday morning peak period and four eastbound trips during the weekday afternoon peak period. In terms of the span of service, the Suffolk Clipper would continue to provide peak period/peak direction service on weekdays. · Morning Service – In the morning peak period, the three existing trips starting at the Exit 63 Park-

and-Ride Lot along the Long Island Expressway at 6:30 AM, 7:20 AM and 7:40 AM would be extended to begin instead at the modified park-and-ride lot to be constructed at the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station and make a second stop at the existing park-and-ride lot located near the intersection of NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and NY 27, as shown in Figure 4-3. These trips would therefore begin at the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station at approximately 6:00 AM, 6:50 AM, and 7:10 AM. In addition, a fourth trip would be added to the Suffolk Clipper’s morning peak period schedule, which would depart the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station at approximately 6:30 AM, thus departing the Exit 63 Park-and-Ride Lot at approximately 7:00 AM. This additional trip was added to more effectively “balance” the morning and afternoon peak period schedules of the Suffolk Clipper, since the service would remain a commuter express service, and having an equal number of trips by direction would be most attractive to commuters.

· Afternoon Service – In the afternoon peak period, the Suffolk Clipper operates four eastbound trips that arrive at the Exit 63 Park-and-Ride Lot on the Long Island Expressway at 5:30 PM, 5:45 PM, 5:50 PM, and 6:10 PM. While not proposing to add any trips to the Suffolk Clipper during the afternoon peak periods, each of these four trips would be extended to serve both the existing park-and-ride lot located near the intersection of NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and NY 27 as well as the modified park-and-ride lot to be constructed at the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station shown in Figure 4-3. They would arrive at the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station at approximately 6:00 PM, 6:15 PM, 6:20 PM, and 6:40 PM.


4-6

FIGURE 4-3: PROPOSED EXTENSION OF SUFFOLK CLIPPER


4-7

It is anticipated that the additional service associated with the Suffolk County Clipper extension to the Mastic-Shirley LIRR Station would add 5.25 revenue hours of service per weekday, or approximately 1,339 additional revenue hours of service per year.

New Ronkonkoma Express Route Proposal in the NY 27 Study Area This route option—which is an additional proposal advanced by this study—calls for a new express bus service between the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station, the existing park-and-ride lot located near the intersection of NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and NY 27, and a modified park-and-ride lot (to allow it to also be used by bus passengers) at the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station (Figure 4-4). It would also allow for a possible extension of the proposed service westward to serve the County and State Office Complex located in Hauppauge. Greater detail is provided in the NY 27 Transit Report in Appendix A.12.

As shown in Figure 4-4, this service would operate via CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and either the general-purpose lanes or new high-occupancy vehicle lanes along NY 27 until NY 112 (Medford Avenue), from where it would serve the existing park-and-ride lot located near the intersection of NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and NY 27. It could then continue along the existing general-purpose lanes or a shoulder high-occupancy vehicle lane on NY 27 until it accessed NY 454 (Veterans Memorial Highway). The proposed route would then operate along NY 454 (Veterans Memorial Highway) to Long Island Islip MacArthur Airport and continue west and north on CR 93 (Lakeland Avenue) and CR 29 (Smithtown Avenue), respectively, to its western terminus at the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station.

This proposed new service could be extended westward from the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station to serve the large government office complex located in Hauppauge. The proposed service would use the I-495 (Long Island Expressway) for this connection rather than returning to NY 454 (Veterans Memorial Highway), as an existing Suffolk Transit bus route (S54) already serves to connect the NY 454 (Veterans Memorial Highway) corridor with Hauppauge. In addition, it is proposed that the new service could operate on a “limited stop” basis along NY 454 (Veterans Memorial Highway) between NY 27 and the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station, with intermediate stops primarily at major trip generators, including (as previously mentioned) Long Island Islip MacArthur Airport.

The advantages of this proposal are:

· It leverages existing infrastructure investments by use park-and-ride lots that either already exist or that may be relatively easily modified.

· It could use either the additional general-purpose lanes or high-occupancy vehicle lanes on NY 27.

· It would provide a more direct trip between the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station and the NY 454 (Veterans Memorial Highway) corridor than either of the existing local Suffolk Transit bus routes (S57 and S59).

· It would provide a direct connection between the Mastic-Shirley area, the NY 454 (Veterans Memorial Highway) corridor, Long Island Islip MacArthur Airport and the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station (as well as with the government office complexes in Hauppauge, should that extension be advanced).

· It would allow commuters from the Mastic-Shirley area to drive or take a bus to the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station, and then enjoy a “one-seat ride” to employers along the NY 454 (Veterans Memorial Highway) corridor (or to the various government facilities in Hauppauge).

Similar to the proposal for the extension of the Suffolk Clipper, the primary disadvantage of this proposal is related to cost—it would require additional resources to operate this new service.


4-8

FIGURE 4-4: PROPOSED RONKONKOMA EXPRESS SERVICE


4-9

Proposed Frequency and Span of Service – The phasing of the new Ronkonkoma Express Route is described below; however, revenue hours have been estimated solely for the initial implementation phase, which would likely last a few years.

· Initial Phase – In terms of the span of service in this first phase, it is proposed that the Ronkonkoma Express Route would operate every 20 minutes bi-directionally during the morning and afternoon peak periods on weekdays. Four round trips would be operated in the morning and four during the afternoon between the modified park-and-ride lot at the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station and the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station via the existing park-and-ride lot located near the intersection of NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and NY 27 and Long Island Islip MacArthur Airport, as is shown in Figure 4-4.

It is anticipated that the Initial Phase service levels would require approximately 14 revenue hours of service per weekday, or approximately 3,570 additional revenue hours of service per year.

· Subsequent Phases – Over time, the new Ronkonkoma Express service could extend its span of service so that it eventually operates seven days a week, as follows:

Phase Two – In this phase, service would be extended to the county and state office complexes in Hauppauge, and the span of service would be increased as the duration of the morning and afternoon peak period services would be extended. Service would continue to operate every 20 minutes.

Phase Three – In this phase, the remainder of the service day on weekdays would be operated with an hourly headway, with a span of service from about 6:00 AM to about 9:00 PM.

Phase Four – In this phase, hourly service would be operated on weekends, but only as far west as the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station. The span of service would be from about 8:00 AM to about 9:00 PM.

Phase Five – In this final implementation phase, the span of service would be extended during the evening on weekdays with hourly service until about 11:00 PM; however, any service after 9:00 PM would operate only as far west as the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station.

Staging Plan Suffolk Transit has proposed a staging plan for the modifications proposed as part of the Comprehensive Bus Route Analysis and Service Development Plan; the plan is expected to be phased in over a 10-year period starting in 2011 and ending in 2020. Greater detail regarding the specific proposals for each Suffolk Transit bus route is provided in the NY 27 Transit Report in Appendix A.12.

At the conclusion of the 10-year implementation period, the transit services in the study area—including changes proposed as part of the NY 27 Sustainable Transportation Study—will appear as illustrated in Figure 4-5.


4-10

FIGURE 4-5: PROPOSED NY 27 STUDY AREA TRANSIT SERVICE


4-11

Estimated Ridership The Comprehensive Bus Route Analysis and Service Development Plan report includes ridership estimates developed as part of Suffolk Transit’s study process (Table 4-1), but only for those route modifications proposed as part of the Suffolk Transit study. It should be kept in mind that these ridership statistics are for the entire bus route and not solely for those portions of the bus route in the study area. Ridership estimates have been developed separately for the proposed extension of the Suffolk Clipper to the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station as well as for the proposed new Ronkonkoma Express bus route described previously. In addition, the estimated operating cost and farebox recovery of these two new bus route proposals was also determined, utilizing the operating cost per revenue hour and average fare data prepared for the Comprehensive Bus Route Analysis and Service Development Plan for Suffolk Transit. It was also estimated that there would be no difference in ridership for the proposed Ronkonkoma Express route should the proposed NY 27 high-occupancy vehicle lane not be constructed. All of the proposed “build” alternatives being considered provide LOS D or better in terms of traffic flow. In addition, there would be no impact on the proposed extension of the Suffolk Clipper resulting from whether the NY 27 high-occupancy vehicle lane is constructed, as the significant majority of the Suffolk Clipper (over 21 miles in each direction) uses the I-495 (Long Island Expressway), which already has a high-occupancy vehicle lane (Table 4-2). Greater detail regarding the ridership projections and the methodology used to produce them is provided in the NY 27 Transit Report in Appendix A.12.

Table 4-1: Boarding Passengers (Suffolk Transit)

Route Annual Ridership (2008) Estimated Annual Ridership (2020) S20/S40 394,861 489,613

S54 346,856 468,509 S61 214,794 225,870 S63 130,506 144,757 S66 277,882 297,306 S68 57,933 0 S71 52,124 44,471 S90 17,800 18,516

7A and 7B 78,327 136,260 7D and 7E 32,999 59,607

7F 0 39,887 Suffolk Clipper (proposed extension) 0 17,411

Suffolk Clipper (entire route) 24,133 41,544 Farmingdale-Coram 0 99,935

Patchogue-Southampton 0 74,951 Ronkonkoma Express 0 41,931 to 46,420

Table 4-2: Proposed Express Bus Route Forecasts

Proposed Route Estimated

Range of Ridership Estimated

Annual Operating Cost Estimated

Range of Farebox Recovery Initial Two Years of Operation

Suffolk Clipper (proposed extension) 8,705 to 13,058 $129,883 9.25% to 13.87% Suffolk Clipper (entire route) 32,838 to 37,191 $309,915 14.67% to 16.61% Ronkonkoma Express 20,965 to 34,815 $346,290 5.64% to 13.92%

Operations After Two Years of Service Suffolk Clipper (proposed extension) 17,411 $129,883 18.50% Suffolk Clipper (entire route) 41,544 $309,915 18.56% Ronkonkoma Express 41,931 to 46,420 $346,290 11.27% to 18.56%


4-12

NY Rideshare The Sunrise Highway study corridor will continue to be part of the 511 NY Rideshare, which offers no- and low-cost solutions for commuters and businesses. 511 NY Rideshare provides free commuter services with the support of NYSDOT, encouraging the use of transportation alternatives such as carpooling, vanpooling, riding the bus or train, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting. Other programs offered are the Guaranteed Ride Program, which offers employees who carpool or vanpool a paid ride in the event that their transportation from work is unavailable; A commuter choice program assists Long Island employers with the promotion of commute alternatives at their worksite; and Long Island Region Improving Commuting (LIRIC) Grant Program, which provides grants to employers who promote alternatives to drive-alone commuting.

Another service in the study corridor includes rewards programs for individuals who don't drive alone but instead choose to walk, bike, telecommute, carpool, vanpool, take a subway, train, bus, ferry or work a compressed week. Members record their green trips, and track the money saved and emissions prevented. Since 2005, members in the New York Metropolitan area have contributed to more than 1 million reduced car trips, about 30 million miles not driven, approximately 13,000 tons of emissions prevented, and 1.3 million gallons of gas saved.

4.1.2 Transportation Systems Management Transportation Systems Management is the term used to define policy and operations techniques to manage and increase transportation system capacity, efficiency, and reliability of the flow of vehicles, travelers, and goods to better meet demand.3

· High-occupancy vehicle and managed lane treatments

Intelligent transportation systems are tools that provide operating agencies with the means to manage and operate their systems by providing travelers with information on emergencies, incidents, construction updates, real-time conditions, real-time schedules through technologies such as the internet, global positioning systems, and wireless communications. These techniques include the following:

· Metering highway entrance ramps;

· Providing en route traveler information;

· Timing traffic signals to prioritize through-traffic movement on major routes and deter it on local routes;

· Implementing traffic signal priority for transit and emergency vehicles; and

· Time-managing transportation facilities to provide more (or less) capacity when needed to balance supply with demand (e.g., reversible lanes, transit train length).

Transportation Systems Management concepts evaluated and recommended for the Sunrise Highway Corridor include:

· Traffic Signal Optimization – Traffic congestion can be relieved and mobility improved with operations management such as traffic signal timing and phasing optimization, transit service adjustments, and transit-use priorities as well as with intersection approach capacity improvements (e.g., turn lanes, protected signal phasing). Traffic-signal optimization in the NY 27 study area can maximize the efficiency of existing traffic-signal equipment. A coordinated effort among local officials, Suffolk County, and Town of Brookhaven can be undertaken to maintain, upgrade, and adjust traffic-signal timing with up-to-date traffic data and new technologies.

3 Smart Growth Transportation Guidelines: An ITE Recommended Practice, 2010


4-13

Table 4-3 illustrates the number of traffic-signal movements and intersections operating at LOS E or worse (See Section, 3.1.4 Levels of Service, Main Roadway, for LOS definition). When comparing base year (2010) and forecast 2035 “No Build” conditions under existing traffic-signal timing with forecast 2035 Near-Term conditions with optimized signal timing, it can be seen that a significant number of intersections had improved traffic conditions. When comparing 2035 “No Build” Alternative with both 2035 Long-Term “Build” Alternatives, it can be seen that 18 intersection movements and 12 intersections would operate at better than LOS E. Detailed intersection LOS analyses results are shown in Appendix A.9.

Table 4-3: Summary of LOS E or Worse by Project Alternative

Project Alternatives

Movements Intersections AM

Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour Total

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour Total

2010 Base Year 8 11 19 3 3 6 2035 “No Build” (No Signal Optimization) 10 18 28 6 7 13 2035 Near-Term (Signal Optimized) 8 9 17 0 2 2 2035 GPL + C-D Roads (Signal Optimized) 2 8 10 1 0 1 2035 GPL + Service Roads (Signal Optimized)

2035 HOV + either C-D or Service Roads (Signal Optimized) 1 9 10 0 1 1

· INFORM – The INFORM (INformation FOR Motorists) system, an advanced transportation management and information systems, covers Long Island's major east-west highways and their busiest north-south connecting routes, including the Long Island Expressway, Northern State Parkway, Southern State Parkway, and Sunrise Highway. INFORM operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year from the Transportation Management Facility located in Hauppauge, New York. It is proposed that INFORM be extended to serve the NY 27 study corridor.

· H.E.L.P. (Highway Emergency Local Patrol) – HELP, a free service to travelers, is a NYSDOT roadway-service patrol program that provides emergency roadside service to disabled vehicles on high volume, limited-access roadways in several areas of New York State. HELP is part of NYSDOT's freeway incident management system and is coordinated and monitored by the NYSDOT's local Transportation Management Centers. It is proposed that HELP be extended to operate within the NY 27 study corridor.

4.1.3 Roadway Improvements For this project, a Near-Term “Build” Alternative and three Long-Term “Build” Alternatives have been developed based upon analysis of the physical inventory, traffic operations surveys, and accident data compiled during the initial study phase. These alternatives were also based upon input received from the Project Advisory Committee at a meeting held March 2009 and from public outreach meetings conducted in April 2009 (see April 2009 Public Meeting Comments Matrix, Appendix B.1). They were refined in response to input from the Project Advisory Committee at meetings held in March 2009, February 2010, and April 2010. Opinion surveys were also conducted by NYSDOT in January 2010 and again in September 2010 to maintain the active involvement and obtain information from the public. The results of these surveys are provided in Appendix E.8 – E.11.

Using the information and feedback developed from the above efforts, a series of conceptual design “sketch” plans were first prepared, reviewed with the Project Advisory Committee, and subsequently refined to “Advanced Concept Design Plans.”


4-14

The annotated “Conceptual Design Sketch Plans” are provided in Appendix B.2 and Appendix B.3. The “Advanced Concept Design Plans” are provided in Appendices B.4 through B.7.

The resulting elements of each alternative are described below.

Near-Term “Build” Alternative Roadway Improvements The Near-Term “Build” Alternative includes:

· Adding a westbound auxiliary lane from Robinson Avenue to Phyllis Drive;

· Widening the Hospital Road north and south service road intersections and approaches;

· Adding exit and entrance ramps and extending the south service road from east of Hospital Road to west of Station Road;

· Adding exit and entrance ramps and extending the south service road from east of William Floyd Parkway to Titmus Drive;

· Adding a westbound entrance ramp and auxiliary lane on NY 27 from Victory Avenue to the Oak Avenue exit ramp;

· Widening the Titmus Drive Bridge and service road intersection approaches; and

· Adding a full interchange at Barnes Road.

Three Long-Term “Build” Alternatives Roadway Improvements The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads includes:

· Including the Near-Term “Build” Alternative improvements; however, instead of service roads, north and south one-way collector-distributor roads close to the main NY 27 roadways will be included from Hospital Road to Station Road;



· Adding exit and entrance ramps along the new collector-distributor roads from Patchogue-Yaphank Road to Station Road;

· Removing the westbound “J” exit ramp to the north service road, converting this service road to one-way westbound, and providing a new westbound exit ramp;

· Extending Yaphank Avenue westbound entrance ramp acceleration lane; · Reconfiguring Old Horse Block Road interchange to include removing the eastbound and westbound

main roadway weaving sections, providing a roundabout at the Victory Avenue intersection, other Yaphank Avenue intersection improvements, and providing a new intersection for southbound left turns south of NY 27;

· Extending the Victory Avenue westbound entrance ramp acceleration lane; · Extending the south service road and north service road west of Jerusalem Hollow Road to Moriches-

Middle Island Road; · Adding a new NY 27 eastbound south service road exit ramp and westbound north service road

entrance ramp at Moriches-Middle island Road; · Adding a new NY 27 eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes from Moriches Middle Island Road

ramps to Barnes Road ramps; and · Removing the eastbound entrance ramp and westbound exit ramp east of Wading River Road, and

adding a westbound entrance ramp and eastbound exit ramp west of Railroad Avenue.


4-15

The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads includes:

· Using the Near-Term improvements; however, instead of a westbound auxiliary lane from Robinson Avenue to Phyllis Drive, extending the north service road from west of Hewlett Avenue to Phyliss Drive;

· Extending existing north and south service roads from Hospital Road to Station Road, and converting to one-way westbound and eastbound, respectively;

· Adding exit and entrance ramps along the new north service road and south service road from Hospital Road to east of Station Road,



· Extending westbound entrance ramp acceleration lane along Yaphank Avenue; · Reconfiguring Old Horse Block Road interchange, including removal of the eastbound and westbound

main roadway weaving sections, providing a roundabout at the Victory Avenue intersection, other Yaphank Avenue intersection improvements, and providing a new intersection for southbound left turns south of NY 27;

· Extending the Victory Avenue westbound entrance ramp acceleration lane; · Extending the south service road and north service road west of Jerusalem Hollow Road to Moriches-

Middle Island Road; · Adding a new NY 27 eastbound south service road exit ramp and westbound north service road

entrance ramp at Moriches-Middle Island Road; · Removing the eastbound entrance ramp and westbound exit ramp east of Wading River Road, and

adding a westbound entrance ramp and eastbound exit ramp west of Railroad Avenue.

The Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads includes:

· Using the Long-Term General Purpose Lane Collector-Distributor Road or Service Road improvements;

· Extending a third eastbound and westbound lane within the 66-foot-wide median of NY 27 from Phyliss Drive to east of William Floyd Parkway to provide both high-occupancy vehicle lanes and full buffer and shoulder areas; and

· Extending the proposed median high-occupancy vehicle lanes west using the existing left lanes of the eastbound and westbound roadways and reconstructing the existing right shoulders and entrance/exit ramp nose areas to maintain three general-purpose lanes in each direction to the CR 97 Interchange. This would provide a connection of the NY 27 high-occupancy vehicle lanes via potential CR 97 (Nicolls Road) high-occupancy vehicle lanes (built by others) to the existing LIE high-occupancy vehicle lanes.

Refer to Appendix B.8 for the roadway design criteria used to prepare the advanced concept plans. Typical roadway and sections for each alternative are provided in Figure 4-7 (typical roadway), and Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-6 (shared-use path).


4-16

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.


4-17

FIGURE 4-6: TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR LONG-TERM “BUILD” ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A – General Purpose Lane Extension with Collector/Distributor Roads

Alternative B – General Purpose Lane Extension with Service Roads


4-18

Alternative C – High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes with Collector/Distributor Roads


4-19

FIGURE 4-7: ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES TYPICAL SECTIONS


4-20

4.2 Travel Demand Forecasts/Best Practices Model

This study has employed the state-of-the-practice multi-modal travel demand model of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (the downstate New York Metropolitan Planning Organization), known as the New York Best Practice Model.

The New York Best Practice Model was developed to provide comprehensive long-range travel demand analysis and forecasts for the 28 downstate New York/New Jersey metropolitan counties, including Suffolk County. Since its development, the New York Best Practice Model has served as the main travel demand model of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council in the regional Conformity Analysis, Congestion Management System, Long Range Transportation Plan, and many subregional/corridor transportation-planning projects. It includes the following advanced features:

· Travel frequencies are forecast for each household member;

· Trip destination and travel mode choices are forecast with multi-modal travel accessibility to destinations fully considered in the destination choices;

· Up to one stop is allowed and modeled for each leg of trips (i.e., inbound and outbound) to represent non-home based trips (e.g., work-to-shopping trip) in a manner that is consistent with the primary home-based trips;

· The comprehensive multi-modal travel modes include single-occupancy vehicle (SOV), high-occupancy vehicle, high-occupancy vehicle with two or more occupants (HOV2), high-occupancy vehicle with three or more occupants (HOV3+), taxis, commuter rail, other transit, and non-motorized;

· Goods movement and freight transport are represented by commercial vehicle trips and truck trips;

· External trips are represented explicitly;

· Diurnal (time-of-day) distribution of trips are represented for each travel mode; and

· User equilibrium trip assignments are employed for both highway and transit trip assignments over the multi-modal transportation network.

The New York Best Practice Model was used in this study to analyze and forecast future multi-modal travel demand within and through the study area.

4.2.1 Base Year Model Calibration For subregional travel corridor studies, the New York Best Practice Model needs to be refined and updated to represent study area travelers’ trip-making choice behavior (e.g., journey frequencies, destination/mode/stop/routes choices, etc.) at a higher level of resolution and accuracy. Accordingly, the study team calibrated the New York Best Practice Model within acceptable levels for the base year (2010) travel conditions of the study area through an iterative refining and updating process. At the outset of the calibration, the model network and zonal socioeconomic data were reviewed and updated with review and concurrence from the Town of Brookhaven Department of Planning and Environment, as follows:

· Traffic Analysis Zone socioeconomic data were reviewed and updated to reflect the 2010 data provided by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council for the Township of Brookhaven;

· The New York Best Practice Model highway network for the study area was reviewed, rectified, refined, and updated to provide more detailed network representation, connectivity, continuity, and various link attributes (e.g., link capacity, free-flow speeds, number of lanes, travel directions, use-eligibility, restrictions, etc.); and


4-21

· The Traffic Analysis Zone system and centroid connectors were reviewed, updated, and refined to enable more appropriate connections between the zonal centroids and adjacent highways; and turn prohibitions were coded at selected intersections and interchanges to prohibit illogical “U-turns” that the model would allow if left unconstrained.

Employing the refined and updated base year network and zonal data, the core travel choice models of the New York Best Practice Model were run to develop synthetic households representative of the study area, vehicle ownerships, journey generation, travel destination/mode/stop choices, commercial vehicle/truck trips, external trips, time-of-day trip distribution, and equilibrium highway trip assignments. The initial trip assignment results were compared with the observed traffic volume count data developed for the selected NY 27 mainlines, entrance/exit ramps, and north-south and east-west screenlines. Using the findings of the initial comparison, subsequent calibrations were performed in an iterative manner to achieve incremental, but systematic calibration improvements to properly represent the travel patterns and conditions prevalent in the Sunrise Highway corridor and the region surrounding it.

Throughout the calibration process, the assigned highway link volumes from the model were compared with the traffic volume counts available from this study at the selected subregional screenlines, NY 27 ramps, and main roadways. Tables 1 through 6 in Appendix B.9 present detailed comparison statistics. As can be seen from the tables, the accuracy of the model’s results vary, depending on the travel time period, travel directions in peak and off-peak periods, and geographical locations within the study area. In general, the assigned link volumes show closer agreements with the traffic counts for the peak travel directions and for the western and central part of the study area where higher levels of travel activities are prevalent. For the off-peak travel directions and the eastern part of the study area, where travel activity levels are relatively lower, higher levels of deviation were noted between the assigned and counted link volumes. While the calibration accuracies vary between different time periods, the model’s results exhibit generally higher level of accuracies for the AM peak period when the majority of the trips are journey-to-work trips. For the PM peak period, particularly in the eastern part of the study area, assigned travel demand volumes were generally higher than the traffic volume counts as the model may have overestimated the amount of discretionary afternoon trips for the study area, which is typified with a relatively low level (i.e., in comparison of the New York metropolitan area) of trip-making activities.

The high level of deviations noted for certain situations in the comparison tables are generally characterized as off-peak directions, relatively lower traffic volume areas, or time periods with substantial amount of discretionary trips. For the peak directions, for areas with high levels of trip activities and for time periods with mostly work-related trips, the model-assigned link travel-demand volumes were deemed to be reasonably close to the pertinent link traffic volume count data. As it has been consistently practiced in the past years, the model forecast demand has been “incrementally post-processed.” This substantially reduces the margin of errors inherent in all travel-demand forecasting models.

For the purpose of this study, the base year New York Best Practice Model-NY 27 model is considered to be adequately calibrated for the purpose of forecasting future year travel demand.

4.2.2 Future Socioeconomic Forecasts, 2030–2035 The estimated and projected demographic, social, and economic conditions in the study area were obtained from the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and Economics Research Associates. Population and housing data for 5-year periods are from New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s 2005–2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Five-year forecasts through 2035, prepared by Urbanomics for the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, include households and employment by Transportation Analysis Zone, and incorporate approved developments with significant trip generation potential. Population and housing data for the Town of Brookhaven and Suffolk County is from Economics Research Associates in 10-year projections.


4-22

During a meeting held on April 6, 2009, the Town of Brookhaven Department of Planning and Environment, Planning Division accepted these socioeconomic forecasts for the purposes of the study’s 2035 “No Build” travel demand forecast. The Socioeconomic Data and Forecasts are provided in Appendix B.10.

4.2.3 Travel Demand Forecasts, Future “No Build” Alternative The future “No Build” Alternative model was developed by updating the calibrated base year New York Best Practice Model in the following key areas that are most likely to affect the future travel conditions: zonal socioeconomic characteristics, changes in transportation networks and services, and transportation policies.

For zonal socioeconomic data, the “No Build” Alternative model generally employs the 2030 zonal data embedded in the New York Best Practice Model. For the Township of Brookhaven, though, the New York Best Practice Model zonal socioeconomic data was further updated by incorporating the latest zonal socioeconomic forecasts available from the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. As discussed in Chapter 5, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s socioeconomic data was reviewed by the Township of Brookhaven and considered to be a reasonable representation of the future zonal socioeconomic data for the purpose of future travel demand forecasting.

The “No Build” Alternative transportation network was coded to incorporate the highway and transit network changes reflecting the future regional highway and transit improvements planned and committed by year 2030 for the study area. To further refine and update these initial 2030 transportation improvements, other highway improvements planned by NYSDOT Region 10, Suffolk County, and Township of Brookhaven were reviewed and incorporated into this network. These included an additional lane in both directions on CR 80 from William Floyd Parkway to Garden Place, one lane reduction on CR 80 west of Patchogue-Yaphank Road and on Portion Road from Nicolls Road to Hawkins Avenue to provide for left turn bays.

Employing the Town of Brookhaven Planning Department approved 2030 zonal socioeconomic data forecasts and the “No Build” Alternative transportation network, the study corridor No-Build travel demand model was run. This task involved forecasting future trip generation, travel destination/mode/ choices, estimation of commercial and truck trips, external trips, time-of-day distribution, and user-equilibrium highway trip assignments. The forecast assignments were further “incrementally post-processed” to provide more accurate forecast travel demand volumes for the NY 27 corridor, including NY 27 main roadways, ramps, and service road intersections. The resulting forecast travel demand volumes and other performance measures (vehicle miles traveled, vehicle hours traveled, average speeds) were further extrapolated to year 2035 and used to provide future “No Build” Alternative measures of effectiveness (see Section 6.2).

4.2.4 Travel Demand Forecasts for Future “Build” Alternatives As described in Section 4.1, this study considered four distinct future “Build” Alternatives: Near-Term, Long-Term General Purpose Lane with Service Roads, Long-Term General Purpose Lanes with Collector-Distributor Roads, and Long Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads. The NY 27 corridor model for each of these alternatives was developed by updating the highway network of the “No Build” Alternative model to represent the highway improvements proposed for each alternative. This task involved modification of the highway network links and nodes, as well as their attributes, to properly reflect each alternative. In addition, the Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads involved implementing additional transportation policies regarding the use-eligibility of the proposed high-occupancy vehicle lanes. This eligibility restriction—vehicles with two or more occupants only—was incorporated into the highway network for this alternative.


4-23

Modeling of the “Build” Alternatives was performed by forecasting trip generation, travel destination/mode choices, by estimation of commercial and truck trips, external trips, time-of-day distribution, and user-equilibrium highway trip assignments for each. The forecast assignments were further “incrementally post-processed” to provide more accurate forecast travel demand volumes for the NY 27 corridor, including NY 27 main roadways, ramps, and service road intersections. The resulting forecast travel demand volumes and other performance measures were extrapolated to year 2035 and used to provide “Build” Alternative measures of effectiveness (see Section 6.2).

4.3 VISSIM Dynamic Simulation

4.3.1 Introduction VISSIM is a traffic simulation software program used to assess traffic operations and to provide several types of transportation engineering and planning measures of effectiveness, including delay, speed, density, travel time, stops, and queues.

A VISSIM traffic simulation model was developed to assess the performance of the Sunrise Highway Corridor study area roadway network during future planning year AM and PM peak periods under existing and potential improvement alternatives.

The key features and capabilities of the VISSIM model include the ability to:

· Replicate individual driver behavior characteristics in various situations (e.g., merging and weaving areas). The software provides modeling options for both arterial streets urban and freeway traffic conditions.

· Model complex intersections and geometries, including signalized and un-signalized intersections, continuous flow intersections, roundabouts, and grade-separated interchanges.

· Choose between static routing and dynamic assignment (based on trip purpose-related and time-dependent origin-destination matrices). In the case of dynamic assignments, separate routing selections can be developed for each vehicle type (e.g., autos, buses, and trucks). The dynamic assignment model can be used to assess the potential for traffic diversion onto alternate routes as well the usefulness of providing exclusive lanes such as high-occupancy vehicle lanes.

· Animate vehicle movements in 2D and 3D. In the 3D mode, vehicle movements are viewed from a “driver’s seat” perspective. 3D objects such as buildings can also be imported into a 3D model.

4.3.2 2010 Base Year Condition VISSIM Model Model Network The VISSIM model represents a sub-area of the overall New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Best Practice Model Highway Network. It contains 20 Best Practice Model Traffic Analysis Zones within the 12-mile corridor study area and was developed to evaluate existing and future traffic operating conditions for the major roadways within this corridor.

The Base Year VISSIM traffic simulation model was constructed to model 2010 existing conditions based on actual traffic volumes for both the AM and PM peak periods. The VISSIM model network included all of the major corridor roadways, including Sunrise Highway, and the surrounding arterials, including CR 80 (Montauk Highway) and CR 99 (Woodside Avenue), from Medford Avenue to Wading River Road.

Origin-Destination Trip Tables and Dynamic Assignment For this study, origin-destination trip table matrices were developed from the calibrated Base Year 2010 Best Practice Model assignment using the TransCAD ODME function, and further refined based on field-


4-24

observed traffic volumes. The study area’s outer boundaries were modeled as external stations where external stations are treated as exit and entry points for access to and from Sunrise Highway and the surrounding roadways. A dynamic assignment process was implemented that allowed VISSIM to determine the optimal route for each vehicle to access Sunrise Highway. Dynamic assignment also helped to identify potential deficiencies in the roadway configuration that cause bottlenecks and congestion.

Measures of Effectiveness A post-processing procedure was developed, which provided an interface with ArcGIS. This procedure provided custom formats in a spreadsheet for the measures of effectiveness summaries, as well as for bar charts and pie charts for graphical displays. For the purpose of this study, measures of effectiveness were collected to include items such as density, average speed, level of service for multilane roadways, travel times along specific roadway segments, roadway level of service and vehicle delays, queue lengths at intersections, intersection delays by movement, and intersection queue lengths by movement.

Model Calibration Existing conditions were calibrated by comparing the VISSIM model outputs with field-observed traffic data. Based on field observation, peak travel direction varies from morning to afternoon within the study area; westbound traffic peaks in the morning period and eastbound traffic peaks in the evening period; therefore, it was necessary to simulate both AM and PM peak periods for this study. To capture the true peaking characteristics, it was necessary to simulate the peak period instead of the peak hour. The purpose of using dynamic assignment was to allow vehicles to travel from point A to point B in the shortest travel time and the least distance traveled, and at minimum cost. To reasonably reflect driver behavior, multiple assignments were run to allow the model to converge based on travel time. Tables 1 and 2 (Appendix B.11) summarize the calibration results for the 2010 Base Year eastbound PM and westbound AM peak periods.

4.3.3 2035 “No Build” Alternative VISSIM Model Model Construction The VISSIM models developed and calibrated for the 2010 Base Year AM and PM conditions were used to develop the 2035 “No Build” Alternative model. Any changes expected to be made to the existing roadway network were added to the models.

Roadway Network As described below, changes were coded into the roadway network to reflect approved planned projects or those already under construction. These included:

· “Jug Handles” at the intersection of CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and CR 80 (Montauk Highway) to relocate the eastbound CR 80 (Montauk Highway) left turn to CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) northbound.

· “Jug Handles” at the intersection of CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and CR 80 (Montauk Highway) to relocate the westbound CR 80 (Montauk Highway) left turn to CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) southbound.

Traffic signal timing and phasing were kept the same at all signalized intersections as they were in 2010.

“No Build” Trip Table Development “No Build” Alternative trip tables were developed based on the results of the future traffic forecast using the Best Practice Model output and were further refined based on post-processed traffic demand volumes.


4-25

Dynamic Assignment A dynamic assignment process was used in the development of the 2035 AM and PM peak period “No Build” Alternative.

Measures of Effectiveness See Appendix B.11 (Tables 3, 4, and 5) for the 2010 Base Year and 2035 “No Build” Alternative measures of effectiveness and the percentage changes. Table 5 shows that in the “No Build” Alternative, average VISSIM network speeds will decrease by about 18 percent in the AM period and about 16 percent in the PM peak period.

These speed reductions result from increases of about 11 percent in vehicle miles traveled and 33 to 35 percent in vehicle hours traveled during those periods.

4.3.4 Near-Term “Build” Alternative VISSIM Model Model Construction The VISSIM models developed for the 2035 “No Build” Alternative AM and PM peak-period traffic conditions were used to develop the Near-Term “Build” Alternative VISSIM models.

Roadway Network Changes were coded into the 2035 “No Build” Alternative VISSIM roadway network to reflect the Near-Term “Build” Alternative improvements, as described previously in Section 4.1.3 of this report.

Near-Term “Build” Alternative Trip Table Development Near-Term “Build” Alternative trip tables were developed based on the results of the future traffic forecast using the Best Practice Model output and were further refined based on post-processed peak-period traffic demand volumes.

Dynamic Assignment A dynamic assignment process was used to develop the 2035 AM and PM peak-period Near-Term “Build” Alternative models.

Measures of Effectiveness See Appendix B.11 (Tables 6 and 7) for the 2035 Near-Term “Build” Alternative measures of effectiveness and the changes between the Near-Term “Build” Alternative and the “No Build” Alternative. As indicated, average network speeds will not change in the AM and PM peak periods from those in the “No Build” Alternative, although both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled increase 2 to 3 percent.

4.3.5 2035 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor VISSIM Model

Model Construction The VISSIM models developed for the 2035 “No Build” Alternative AM and PM conditions were used to develop the 2035 Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads VISSIM models.

Roadway Network Changes were coded into the 2035 “No Build” Alternative VISSIM roadway network to reflect the Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads improvements.


4-26

High-Occupancy Vehicle with C-D Road “Build” Alternative Trip Table Development These trip tables were developed based on the results of the future traffic forecast using the Best Practice Model output and were further refined based on post-processed demand volumes.

Dynamic Assignment The dynamic assignment process was used to develop the 2035 AM peak-period Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads VISSIM models. For this assignment, auto types were split into both high-occupancy and single-occupancy autos.

Measures of Effectiveness See Appendix B.11 (Tables 8 and 9) for the 2035 Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads measures of effectiveness and the changes between it and the “No Build” Alternative. The Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads average network speeds increased by about 12 percent in the AM peak period and by 14 percent in the PM peak period when compared to the “No Build” Alternative. Vehicle miles traveled increased by about 17 percent, and person miles traveled increased by 28 percent.

4.3.6 VISSIM Model Results and Conclusions 2035 “No Build” Alternative To help visualize operational conditions, a color scheme was assigned to each vehicle based on travel speed: red, orange, orange-yellow, yellow, and green. Red indicates vehicles traveling under 20 mph, orange indicates vehicles traveling under 40 mph, orange-yellow indicates vehicles traveling under 50 mph, yellow indicates vehicles traveling under 60 mph, and green indicates vehicles traveling 60 mph or higher. (See Figure 4-8 as an example.)


4-27

FIGURE 4-8: VISSIM RESULTS (2035 NO BUILD – 7:00 AM)


4-28

As shown in Appendix B.11 (Figure 1), during the 2035 AM peak period:

· Sunrise Highway westbound traffic congestion appears from Hospital Road eastward beyond Station Road towards Old Horse Block Road.

· Hospital Road (bridge) northbound traffic queue spills across the bridge to the south service road intersection.

· CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) traffic congestion appears from Sunrise Highway to and south of CR 80 (Montauk Highway).

· Wading River Road, northbound to westbound left turn queue spills across bridge to south service road intersection.

The following impacts were seen in the PM peak-period “No Build” Alternative model (Appendix B.11, Figure 2):

· Sunrise Highway eastbound congestion west of Station Road.

· CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) eastbound to southbound exit ramp congestion, with traffic spilled back to the eastbound main roadway, affecting mainline thru traffic.

· CR 80 (Montauk Highway) congestion from CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) east to Barnes Road

Near-Term “Build” Alternative As shown in Appendix B.11 (Figure 3), Near-Term “Build” Alternative improvements result in the following AM peak-period changes:

· The proposed westbound auxiliary lane relieves congestion westbound west of Hospital Road.

· The proposed Titmus Drive and Barnes Road interchanges relieve congestion on Wading River Road.

As shown in Appendix B.11, Figure 4, the Near-Term “Build” Alternative improvement results in the following PM peak-period changes:

· The proposed addition of the south service road east of CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) relieved congestion at the Sunrise Highway/CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) interchange eastbound exit ramp and main roadway.

· The proposed south service road extensions from Hospital Road to Patchogue-Yaphank Road relieved eastbound congestion along this section of Sunrise Highway.

Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with Either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads As shown in Appendix B.11 (Figure 5), this alternative resulted in the following changes in the AM peak period:

· Westbound general-purpose lanes were congested between Medford Avenue and Station Road.

· Vehicles on the high-occupancy vehicle lane were operating at free flow speed.

Conclusion As indicated in Appendix B.11 (Tables 9 and 7), the Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads would increase vehicle miles traveled by 17 percent in the AM, while the Near-Term “Build” Alternative would increase vehicle miles traveled by


4-29

only about 2 percent, when compared to the “No Build” Alternative. This increase in vehicle miles traveled would also occur in the PM, where the Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads vehicle miles traveled would increase by about 17 percent, while the Near-Term “Build” Alternative would increase only by about 3 percent. It appears that the Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads would attract more vehicles onto Sunrise Highway than the Near-Term “Build” Alternative, and the overall operations would be worse, based on the vehicle hours traveled results. The high-occupancy vehicle lane would not attract enough two-person carpools, and the remaining general-purpose lanes would be congested.


5-1

CHAPTER 5 Social, Economic and Environmental Conditions

The purpose of this section is to characterize the social, economic, and built and natural environments of the NY 27 study corridor, and to identify the potential impacts of each “Build” alternative.

5.1 Social

The project is located in the Town of Brookhaven, in Suffolk County, on the southern side of Long Island. The study includes areas under the governmental jurisdiction of Suffolk County, the Town of Brookhaven, and the Village of Patchogue, Village of Bellport, and Village of Mastic Beach.

5.1.1 Land Use The study area is suburban and moderately developed, with predominantly residential uses. The most prevalent land use is medium- and high- density residential. Adjacent to Sunrise Highway, commercial establishments are predominant west of Phyllis Drive, and vary from gas stations and automotive repair shops to shopping centers and strip malls. East of Phyllis Drive, residential developments and parks are the major land use types. Commercial land uses are found along the major arterial highways, mainly along NY 112 (Medford Avenue), and proximate to the interchanges with NY 27. The Town of Brookhaven Waste Management Facility is located north of NY 27 (Sunrise Highway) in Brookhaven hamlet, and an open space area for recreation (Suffolk County’s Southaven Park) is located north and south of NY 27 between Exits 57 and 58 in the hamlets of Yaphank and Shirley. The Town of Brookhaven also owns and controls a general aviation airport (Brookhaven-Calabro Airport), which is located north of NY 27 (Sunrise Highway) and east of CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) in Shirley. This airport maintains several fixed-based operators doing business related to aviation, including Dowling College’s School of Aviation located along the north side of the facility. See Figure 5-1 for study area land use.


5-2

FIGURE 5-1: STUDY AREA LAND USE


5-3

The 2000 Census Tract/Block Geographic Information Systems coverage was used to define the study area boundary and organize the base year data (Figure 5-2). Block data were used in obtaining information regarding data on population, age, race, ethnicity, labor force, income, housing units, and land use.

U.S. Census data included the decennial census, population estimate updates, the American Community Survey and the Census Transportation Planning Package. Updates to the 2000 information were prepared by Claritas, ESRI, and Economics Research Associates for the Brookhaven 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In addition, forecasts were used that were prepared by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and based on trends in demographic components that affect future population and economic conditions.


5-4

FIGURE 5-2: STUDY AREA COVERAGE CLASSIFIED BY 2000 CENSUS TRACT/BLOCK GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS


5-5

5.1.2 Population The total population of the study area in 2008 was estimated to be 119,205 as presented in Table 5-1. In the study area, there is a slightly higher percentage (29.5 percent) of under-19 people when compared with the town (27.8 percent) and the county (27.5 percent). There is a lower percentage of people over age 65, which is 9.2 percent in the study area, 10.6 percent in Brookhaven, and 12.8 percent in Suffolk County. Racial and ethnic makeup of the study area was predominately White (83 percent), as was the Town of Brookhaven (87.3 percent) and Suffolk County (87.1 percent). African-Americans make up 7.3 percent of the study area, as compared to 4.5 percent of the town and 7.9 percent of the county. Racial groups that include persons who identify themselves as some other race or two or more races constituted percentages similar to the percentages in the township and the county as a whole. Persons of Hispanic origin accounted for 14.3 percent of the study area’s population and Asians comprised 2.1 percent of the study area.

Table 5-1: Population Characteristics (2007/2008)

Study Area Town of

Brookhaven Suffolk County Population

Area (in square miles) 97.39 259.29 912.20 Total Population 119,205 464,996 1,453,229 Population Density (per square mile) 1,072.5 1,793.3 1,593.1 Total Households 37,841 154,145 478,332

Age Age 19 and Under 35,311 129,496 399,244

% of total population 29.5 27.8 27.5 65+ 10,969 49,287 185,677

% of total population 9.2 10.6 12.8 Median Age 37.4 39.2

Race White 98,889 405,851 1,265,299

% of total population 83.0 87.3 87.1 Black or African American 8,667 21,061 114,284

% of total population 7.3 4.5 7.9 American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander 439 1,622 6,831

% of total population 0.4 0.3 0.5 Asian 2,498 16,024 49,068

% of total population 2.1 3.4 3.4 Two or more races 3,630 8,569 17,747

% of total population 3.0 1.8 1.2 Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino 17,005 48,211 193,605 % of total population 14.3 10.4 13.3

Source: Study Area – ESRI (2007); Town of Brookhaven and Suffolk County - U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (2008)

5.1.3 Labor Force Table 5-2 identifies the number of workers by industry categories who reside in Suffolk County, the Town of Brookhaven, and the study area. In 2007/2008, as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI, there were 51,707 workers living in the study area, with 235,060 living in the town and 712,124 living in the county. In the study area, more employees work in the retail trade (13.6 percent) than any other industry. Within the town and county, employment in the retail trade is second to employment in the educational, health and social services industry (26 percent of Brookhaven workers and 24.5 percent of Suffolk County workers). Between 2000 and 2007, the study area saw a 127 percent increase in the finance, insurance, and real estate industries.


5-6

Table 5-2: Industry Breakdown for Labor Force (2007/2008)

Sector Study Area % of Total Town of

Brookhaven % of Total Suffolk County % of Total

Total Workers 51,707 235,060 712,124 Industry

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting and mining 517 1.0 418 0.2 2,394 0.3

Construction 5,584 10.8 20,244 8.6 58,318 8.2 Manufacturing 6,308 12.2 17,897 7.6 56,478 7.9 Wholesale Trade 2,068 4.0 8,155 3.5 26,572 3.7 Retail Trade 7,032 13.6 30,813 13.1 84,259 11.8 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 1,758 3.4 13,049 5.6 40,712 5.7 Information 1,551 3.0 6,555 2.8 21,922 3.1 Financing, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 6,257 12.1 14,977 6.4 56,508 7.9

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services

5,688 11.0 22,813 9.7 77,128 10.8

Educational, health and social services 5,998 11.6 61,116 26.0 174,234 24.5 Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 5,688 11.0 18,558 7.9 52,262 7.3

Other services (except public administration) 2,068 4.0 8,079 3.4 28,039 3.9 Public administration 672 1.3 12,386 5.3 33,298 4.7 Source: Study Area – ESRI (2007); Town of Brookhaven and Suffolk County - U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (2008)

As shown below in Table 5-3, unemployed persons accounted for 5.2 percent of the Town of Brookhaven and 4.6 percent of Suffolk County. The median household income in the study area and the Town of Brookhaven was similar, around $80,000 and lower than the county median of $83,447. The percentage of people living below the poverty level in the Town of Brookhaven and Suffolk County was approximately the same, 5.7 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively.

Table 5-3: Labor Force and Income Characteristics (2007/2008)

Study Area Town of Brookhaven Suffolk County Labor Force

Labor Force n/a 247,937 746,169 Employed 51,707 235,060 712,124

% of total n/a 94.7 95.4 Unemployed n/a 12,877 34,045

% of total n/a 5.2 4.6 Income

Median Household Income 80,085 80,701 83,447 Per Capita Income 29,390 32,764 34,924 Persons Below Poverty Level n/a n/a n/a

% of total population n/a 5.7 5.0 Source: ESRI (2007); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2007); 2005 Employment Data New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

5.1.4 Housing The average household size for the study area was 3.1 persons. Table 5-4 presents the housing profile for the study area, the Town of Brookhaven and the County of Suffolk. Housing units within the study area totaled 37,841 in 2007. There was a higher percentage of occupied housing units in the Town of Brookhaven (93.1 percent) than in the county as a whole (87.9 percent). In addition, 73.8 percent


5-7

(24,239 units) of the total occupied housing units in the study area were owner-occupied units in 2000; lower than the percentages for the town and the county, which were around 79 percent. Between 2000 and 2007, the number of owner-occupied housing units within the study area increased 19 percent in the study area, 8 percent within the Town of Brookhaven, and 6 percent within Suffolk County. However, the number of renter-occupied units increased 5 percent within the study area during the same time frame, though the Town of Brookhaven and Suffolk County saw reductions.

Table 5-4: Housing Characteristics (2007)

Study Area Town of Brookhaven Suffolk County Households

Total Households 37,841 154,145 478,332 Average Household Size 3.09 2.93 2.97

Housing Housing Units n/a 165,494 544,470 Occupied Units 37,841 154,145 478,332

% of Total Units n/a 93.1 87.9 Owner Occupied Housing Units 28,780 125,537 395,172

% of Occupied Units 76.1 81.4 82.6 Renter Occupied 9,061 28,608 83,160

% of Occupied Units 23.9 18.6 17.4 Vacant Units n/a 11,349 66,138

% of Total Units n/a 6.9 12.1 Source: ESRI (2007); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2007)

5.1.5 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion Under the “Build” Alternatives being considered, the majority of construction would be within the NY 27 median areas and existing roadway right-of-way. Construction outside of the right-of-way would require the use of public easements or right-of-way acquisitions of private property. Temporary construction impacts would occur but no significant long-term neighborhood/community disruptions to the local population or business community are expected.

The project’s “Build” Alternatives would expand transportation options and connectivity throughout the corridor with traffic operations and safety improvements to the main roadways, service roads, and local road networks. Projects would not divide neighborhoods, isolate part of a neighborhood, or otherwise affect community cohesion.

5.1.6 General Social Groups Benefitted or Harmed Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, directs federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice as part of their mission by identifying and addressing the effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The U.S. Department of Transportation Order on Environmental Justice (USDOT Order) was issued in 1997 to summarize and expand the requirements of Executive Order 12898 regarding environmental justice. The USDOT Order set forth the principles of environmental justice in policies, programs and other activities that are undertaken, funded or approved by Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration or other U.S. Department of Transportation Order entities. A determination of whether a project would have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations is required.

The Environmental Justice concerns addressed for this project follow the Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance, which states that minority populations should be identified where either the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent, or the minority population percentage of the affected


5-8

area is meaningfully greater than the minority population of the general population, in this case, Suffolk County.

Data for minority and low-income populations within the study area were obtained at the census tract level and block group level from the 2000 decennial census. In 2000, Suffolk County reported that 6.9 percent of its population was Black or African American alone and 10.5 percent were Hispanic or Latino (all races) while the comparable study area populations were 6.8 percent Black and 11.5 percent Hispanic. Thirteen census tracts or block groups within the study area exceed these percentages, but only one census block has a population in which more than half of the population comprise minority populations: Census Tract 1591.03 (in the middle of the study area, bordered by West Dunton Road on the west and the Carmans River on the east) reported a 47 percent Black population and 22 percent Hispanic population. (See Figure 5-2 for this and other census tracts in the study area.)

None of the “Build” Alternatives would result in disproportionate negative impacts on this population, and access between NY 27 and the neighborhood in the southeast quadrant of NY 27 and CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road) would be improved.

Within the study area, 6.8 percent of the population reported incomes below the 1999 poverty level compared to Suffolk County, which reported 1.0 percent. This proportion ranges from 1.6 percent (Census Tract 1587.07) to 27.7 percent (Census Tract 1591.03). All of the census tracts in the study area have a greater proportion of people living below the poverty line than Suffolk County overall; eight census tracts reported poverty levels greater than the study area overall. Table 5-5 summarizes these statistics.

Table 5-5: Minority Populations and Income, by Census Tract

Census Tract Minority Populations

Below Poverty Level African-American Hispanic/Latino 1587.07 15.5% 6.7% 1.6% 1587.10 9.1% 6.4% 7.2% 1587.12 6.2% 14.3% 4.2% 1589.00 4.1% 25.9% 10.8% 1591.02 4.5% 10.7% 7.6% 1591.03 46.9% 22.2% 27.7% 1591.06 13.5% 16.8% 2.7% 1594.04 6.7% 13.0% 17.8% 1594.06 10.5% 12.0% 8.0% 1594.07 3.1% 12.1% 5.6% 1594.08 3.6% 11.3% 7.0% 1594.10 7.4% 5.8% 6.4% Study Area 6.8% 11.5% 6.8% Suffolk County 6.9% 10.5% 1.0%

Improving NY 27 (Sunrise Highway) would provide safer, more efficient movement within the project area and benefit the surrounding area residents. There would be no disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations predicted as a result of potential future projects evaluated under this study effort.

5.1.7 School Districts, Parks and Recreational Areas, Houses of Worship, Businesses There are 15 public school districts located within the local municipalities of Brookhaven, 6 of which are wholly or partially within the study area. The parks and recreational areas located within the study corridor are listed in Table 5-6. (See the 2009 Inventory of Ecological Resources report in Appendix C.1.)


5-9

Table 5-6: Parklands and Recreation Areas

Name of Park Acres

(if available) Type of Park Location Hampton Vistas Open Space 125 Municipal Eastport-Manor Road, Manorville, NY Southaven County Park 1,356 County Victory Avenue, Brookhaven, NY Twelve Pines Park & Open Space 90 Municipal Sipp Avenue and East Woodside Avenue, Brookhaven, NY Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge 2,550 Federal (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service) Smith Road, Shirley, NY

Dozens of houses of worship are located within the study corridor. Other institutions located within the project corridor include the Suffolk Cooperative Library System located at 627 North Sunrise service road as well as several branches of numerous library systems, and Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center on 101 Hospital Road.

Commercial strip malls and retail stores are dispersed throughout the corridor. Prominent commercial locations include the Bellport Outlet Center Shopping Center at 10 Farber Drive, just north of Sunrise Highway between Station Road and Sundown Drive and the Long Island Auto Mall, south of Sunrise Highway at 211 Medford Avenue (NY 112).

The Brookhaven Airport is located to the north of NY 27 between CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and Moriches Middle Island Road. Additionally, a NYSDOT Maintenance Facility is located south of NY 27 on Park Avenue near Franklin Court.

5.1.8 Visual Resources The study area is characterized by mid-20th century suburban residential development where one- and two-story homes on small lots are surrounded by mature trees and landscaping. Residential areas are generally screened by dense vegetation and level terrain. Currently, the NY 27 median consists of a mown-grass area that acts as a buffer zone between the roadways and creates a visual separation between the roadways, in addition to its main function to improve safety. East of Gerrard Road, for a length of about 400 feet, there are several tall evergreen trees in the median.

5.2 Economic

There are commercial areas and major employers within and bordering the study area, including Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center, Briarcliff College, St. Joseph’s College, and Brookhaven National Laboratory.

5.2.1 Regional and Local Economies In 1996, the Town of Brookhaven updated its comprehensive plan. The study area is not specifically identified in the plan. Transportation goals of the plan include reducing traffic congestion and maintaining the function and improving the capacity of the roadway network. The proposed project improvements are consistent with these goals.

Visual appearance of NY 27 (with trees in the median)


5-10

5.2.2 Business Districts Small central business districts are located in the Village of Patchogue along CR 80 (Montauk Highway) and CR 83 (North Ocean Avenue); the hamlets of North Bellport along CR 80 (Montauk Highway) and Station Road; and Shirley along CR 80 (Montauk Highway) and CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway).

Table 5-7 provides a list of the shopping centers and central business districts in the study area by 2000 Census Designated Places.4

Table 5-7: Shopping Centers and Central Business Districts

Suffolk County’s shopping center and central business district space totals 45,255,000 square feet, of which 14,273,000—more than one-third of Suffolk’s shopping center area square footage—are located in the Town of Brookhaven. The study area has a total of 3,752,800 square feet of shopping centers and central business districts. According to the inventory maintained by the Suffolk County Department of Planning, 803 shopping centers and 72 central business districts existed in Suffolk County in 2005. Of this number, 265 shopping centers and 15 central business districts were located in the Town of Brookhaven, which represents more than any other town. When compared with 2000 data, the largest increase in stores and square footage occurred in the Center Moriches Census Designated Place, which saw an increase in stores and square footage due to the recent addition of a CVS pharmacy and general store. Medford Census Designated Place also saw a pronounced increase in square footage due to the addition of stores such as Lowe’s and Target. This countywide increase in square footage is in contrast to the overall reduction of shopping centers, stores and central business districts in Suffolk County, and reflects the continuing trend of large-sized store construction.

Shopping Centers and

Central Business Districts Stores Square Feet Study Area 84 1,017 3,752,800 Brookhaven Census Designated Places 1 4 5,000 Center Moriches Census Designated Places 4 78 182,500 East Patchogue Census Designated Places 15 141 641,500 Manorville Census Designated Places 1 20 80,000 Mastic Census Designated Places 5 37 77,000 Medford Census Designated Places 16 116 775,500 Moriches Census Designated Places 3 29 91,000 North Bellport Census Designated Places 5 111 51,800 North Patchogue Census Designated Places 9 99 711,000 Patchogue Village 5 203 389,500 Shirley Census Designated Places 19 173 738,000 Yaphank Census Designated Places 1 6 10,000 Town of Brookhaven 280 3,396 14,273,000 Suffolk County 875 12,115 45,255,000 Source: Suffolk County Department of Planning

5.2.3 Highway Related Businesses Based on existing mapping, several interchanges in the study area have businesses located at or near them. At the interchange of NY 27 and NY 112 (Medford Avenue), an Autoworld is located in the northeast quadrant, with several businesses adjacent along the service road. At the Hospital Road interchange, several small businesses are located both north and south of NY 27. At Station Road, the Bellport Outlet Center occupies the northwest quadrant, with a group of vacant retail storefronts clustered in the southwest quadrant. Small businesses are located between NY 27 and Montauk Highway at the Horseblock Road interchange.

4 Census Designated Places are settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name but are not

legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located.


5-11

5.3 Environmental

5.3.1 Air Quality An air quality screening analysis was conducted to determine the potential effects of the roadway improvement “Build” Alternatives along the NY 27 study corridor on emissions of carbon monoxide; volatile organic compounds; nitrogen oxides; and particulate matter (PM2.5).

Criteria Pollutants The criteria emissions of concern for this analysis are carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter (PM2.5) associated with emissions from motor vehicles.

Regulatory Setting The NY 27 study corridor is located in Suffolk County, New York, which is designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a nonattainment area for not meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the 8-hour ozone, and 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards, and is designated as an attainment area for the 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide standard.

Emissions Analysis An area-wide mesoscale emissions analysis was conducted to estimate the potential change that each of the “Build” Alternatives would have on the amount of mobile source-related air pollutants in the study area as compared to the “No Build” Alternative. Emissions were based on daily (weekday, Saturday and Sunday) estimates of vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled under forecast 2035 future “No Build” and four “Build” Alternatives.

Speeds used for determining emission rates were calculated by dividing vehicle miles traveled by vehicle hours traveled estimates for the “No Build” and “Build” Alternatives. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s MOBILE 6.2.03 emission factor algorithm was used to estimate emission factors along with site-specific data obtained from NYSDOT for Suffolk County.

A wintertime average temperature of 43°F was used to determine carbon monoxide, particulate matter (PM2.5) and carbon dioxide emission factors. Minimum/maximum ambient summertime temperatures of 75.4°F/94.1°F were used to estimate volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides emissions.

Table 5-8: Estimated Future Pollutant Emission Burdens (2035)

No Build

Near-Term “Build”

Alternative GPL with C-D

Roads Alternative GPL with Service Roads Alternative

HOVL with C-D Roads Alternative

2035 Area-Wide Emission Rates (Tons/Yr) Carbon Monoxide 16,953 16,998 16,800 17,098 17,158 Nitrogen Oxides 288 289 285 290 294 Volatile Organic Compounds 298 299 292 297 296 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 22 22 22 22 22

Changes in Area-Wide Emission Rates from No Build Alternative (Tons/Yr) Carbon Monoxide — 45 -153 146 205 Nitrogen Oxides — 1 -3 3 6 Volatile Organic Compounds — 1 -6 -1 -2 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) — 0.06 -0.19 0.22 0.32

Results of the area-wide mesoscale analysis indicate that nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions would increase under the 2035 “Build”


5-12

Alternative with the Near-Term “Build” Alternative compared to 2035 “No Build” conditions. Emissions under the 2035 Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads would decrease compared to 2035 “No Build” conditions. Nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions would increase while volatile organic compounds emissions would decrease under the 2035 Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads and under the 2035 Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads, compared to 2035 “No Build” conditions.

Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2) The potential energy consumption and resulting greenhouse gas emissions have been quantified for the four NY 27 study corridor “Build” Alternatives and the “No Build” alternative under forecast 2035 conditions, as described below.

The proposed “Build” Alternatives along NY 27 would increase operating speeds and change travel patterns along the project corridor. Their potential energy impacts have been analyzed based on guidance and procedures developed in NYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis (November 2003). The energy analysis addresses two elements: direct and indirect energy consumption. Direct energy refers to the fuel consumed by vehicles using the highway facility. Indirect energy refers to energy associated with construction, maintenance, and operation of the facility. Fuel consumption also determines vehicular emissions, which have been analyzed for carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas associated with global warming.

CO2 emissions from direct energy consumption are the result of the combustion of motor vehicle fuel; therefore, this analysis employed carbon emission coefficients for motor vehicle fuel to calculate the carbon equivalent of carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the proposed project. The remaining energy impacts are the indirect energy associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining a facility. The indirect energy analysis was conducted using the Input-Output Approach in the above-noted Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines. Maintenance energy is based on the lane-miles of pavement type for a facility. The indirect energy analysis is focused on the differences in the energy consumed due to construction between the “No Build” and the “Build” Alternatives. Construction energy covers production and transport of materials, powering on-site equipment, worker transportation and other factors plus the materials used in construction itself.

Results As shown in Table 5-9, the 2035 “Build” Alternative with the Near-Term “Build” Alternative would result in higher energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions compared to 2035 “No Build” conditions as a result of the increase in study area vehicle miles traveled. The 2035 “Build” Alternative with the GPL and C-D Roads would result in lower energy consumption and lower CO2 emissions compared to 2035 No Build conditions. The reduction in carbon dioxide emissions under the 2035 Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads is directly related to predicted increases in vehicular speeds and reduction in vehicle miles traveled in the study area as compared to 2035 “No Build” conditions. Energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions would increase under both the 2035 Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads and the 2035 Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads compared to 2035 “No Build” conditions as a result of the increase in vehicle miles traveled in the study area under these two “Build” Alternatives.


5-13

Table 5-9: Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Estimates

No Build Near-Term “Build”

Alternative GPL with C-D

Roads Alternative GPL with service roads Alternative

HOVL with C-D Roads Alternative

Energy Consumption, Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Fuel Consumed Energy Consumption (million Btus/yr) 15,412,000 15,498,000 15,395,000 15,674,000 15,797,000

Carbon Dioxide Emissions (tons/yr) 750,000 753,000 746,000 760,000 764,000

Fuel Consumed (gal/yr) 123,300,000 123,700,000 122,300,000 124,500,000 125,000,000 Change in Energy Consumption, Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Fuel Consumed

Change in Energy Consumption (million Btus/yr) — 86,000 -17,000 262,000 385,000

Change in Carbon Dioxide Emissions (tons/yr) — 3,000 -4,000 10,000 14,000

Change in Fuel Consumed (gal/yr) — 400,000 -1,000,000 1,200,000 1,700,000

5.3.2 Noise A noise impact assessment was prepared which addressed the potential noise impacts associated with the four NY 27 “Build” alternative improvements. This assessment was based on establishing an approximate 250 feet potential noise impact zone from the edge of the outer most proposed roadway improvement. This initial approach provides a first order-of-magnitude estimate of traffic noise exposure that homes or other sensitive receptors can expect to experience from these potential new roadway lanes. The number of potentially affected properties was based on a count of these properties located within the 250-foot impact zone. Once these areas were identified, a noise barrier assessment was prepared.

Noise barriers were considered based upon the residential density within each identified area. Areas with a minimum residential density of approximately one property per 100 feet of linear length of barrier wall were identified as warranting review for potential noise barriers. Second-row properties behind a potential noise wall were included in establishing reasonable residential density.

Noise levels are measured in units called decibels. Measured sound levels are adjusted (or weighted) to correspond to the frequency response of human hearing. The weighted sound level is expressed in single-number units called A-weighted decibels (dBA). NYSDOT traffic noise abatement policy guidelines require that an acoustically effective noise wall provide a minimum attenuation of 7 dBA at a maximum unit cost of $80,000 per benefitting property. Noise barrier cost effectiveness was based on achieving an acoustically effective noise barrier with a 16-foot-tall wall and unit barrier cost of approximately $50 per square foot.

The analysis findings indicate the fewest noise impacts would occur with the Near-Term roadway improvements, while the greatest number of impacts would occur under the high-occupancy vehicle and collector distributor or service road improvement alternatives. Noise impacts under the two general purpose lane improvement alternatives scenarios would likely result in about 20 percent fewer potential impacts than the Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads. These results are summarized in Table 5-10.


5-14

Table 5-10: Summary of Potential Noise Impact Assessment Analysis and Estimated Noise Barrier Wall Lengths

Alternative

NY 27 Westbound

Potential Residential

Impacts

NY 27 Eastbound Potential

Residential Impacts

Total Potential

Residential Impacts

Estimated Noise Barrier

Lengths (Feet)

Near-Term 28 52 80 3,600 General Purpose Lanes/Collector-Distributor Roads 89 64 153 5,600 General Purpose Lanes/Service Roads 97 67 164 5,600 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes/Collector-Distributor Roads 116 85 201 6,000 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes/Service Roads 124 88 212 6,000

Upon the selection of a preferred alternative, noise monitoring would be conducted at sensitive land uses potentially affected by the “Build” Alternative followed by detail modeling using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model in order to quantitatively assess sound levels and identify the locations for inclusion of noise barriers.

5.3.3 Ecology An inventory of ecological resources has been prepared to identify existing conditions within the NY 27 study corridor. (See Appendix C.1 for the full documentation, Inventory of Ecological Resources Report.) This section represents a qualitative analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the four proposed alternatives described in Section 4-1. The ecological/environmental considerations were:

· Wetlands (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and National Wetlands Inventory)

· Surface Waters and Navigable Waters · Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers · Coastal Resources · Farmland · Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplains · Pine Barrens · Forested Areas · Critical Environmental Areas · Parkland · Remediation Sites · National Environmental Policy Act and State Environmental Quality Review Act requirements

Table 5-11 provides a qualitative comparison of potential environmental impacts for each of the proposed alternatives. A numerical value between 1 and 4 was assigned to each environmental consideration to provide a qualitative impact score, with 4 representing the highest level of potential impacts. A final score indicates a relative comparison of each alternative, with the higher scores representing the higher level of impact. (For this comparison, it is assumed that a “No Build” alternative would represent the lowest level of potential impact.) This comparison used geographic information system layers of the above-mentioned environmental considerations overlain on Computer Aided Design (CAD) files of the proposed alternatives. Based on this analysis, the alternative with the lowest cumulative level of potential environmental impacts is the Near-Term “Build” Alternative, while the Long-Term General Purpose Lane and Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle with Service Roads Alternatives would result in the highest cumulative level of potential impacts. A brief narrative of the environmental considerations follows.


5-15

Table 5-11: Comparison of Alternatives

Environmental Consideration Near-Term

Long-Term General Purpose Lane with

Collector-Distributor Roads

Long-Term General Purpose Lane with

Service Roads

Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle

Lane with Collector-

Distributor Roads

Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane with Service

Roads Wetlands (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation)

1 1 4 1 4

Wetlands (National Wetlands Inventory) 1 3 4 3 4

Surface Waters 1 3 4 3 4 Scenic & Rec. Riv. 1 1 1 1 1 Coastal Resources 1 2 4 2 4 Farmland 2 2 2 2 2 Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain 1 3 3 3 3

Pine Barrens 1 1 1 1 1 Forested Areas 1 3 4 3 4 Critical Environmental Areas 1 1 1 1 1 Parkland 1 1 1 1 1 Remediation Sites 1 1 1 1 1 Impact Score 13 22 30 22 30

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Wetlands The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulates activities in mapped freshwater wetlands under Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law (6NYCRR Parts 662, 663, 664, and 665) and under Title 23 of Article 71 of the State Environmental Conservation Law. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulates wetlands that are greater than 12.4 acres and/or wetlands that are smaller that possess unique and unusual characteristics. In addition, state-designated wetlands include a 100-foot width Adjacent Area or wetland buffer, which is also regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Wetlands are classified Class I–IV, with Class I wetlands being the most valuable.

Mapped New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands were identified throughout the length of study area and are generally associated with the various streams and rivers that bisect NY 27 and flow south towards the coast. The waterways include the Patchogue River, Swan River, and Mud Creek in the western portion of the study area, the Carmans River in the central portion, and the Forge River in the eastern extent of the study area. The locations of these New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands are shown in the Appendix C.1 Inventory of Environmental Resources report and have also been superimposed on the Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, in Appendices B.4 to B.7.

Based on the comparative qualitative analysis, the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads would potentially affect the highest acreage of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands with relatively low and equivalent impacts associated with the other three alternatives.

National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands National Wetlands Inventory maps are prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and provide a visual reference of potential wetlands locations but are not afforded regulatory protection. National Wetlands Inventory wetlands are mapped in generally the same locations as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands mapped but include some smaller wetland areas located outside


5-16

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands limits. The locations of National Wetlands Inventory wetlands are provided in the Appendix C.1 Inventory of Ecological Resources report and have also been superimposed on the Advanced Conceptual Design Plans (Appendices B.4 through B.7). While the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulates mapped wetlands greater than 12.4 acres, the National Wetlands Inventory and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands provide a useful reference to the general location of wetlands that would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; however, a detailed wetland delineation would be required to provide a precise location of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands.

Based on the comparative qualitative analysis, the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads would potentially affect the highest acreage of National Wetlands Inventory wetlands, while the Near-Term “Build” Alternative would result in the lowest level of potential impacts to National Wetlands Inventory wetlands.

Surface Waters and Navigable Waters Any alteration or excavation of the bed and/or bank of a Protected Surface Water is considered a regulated activity and requires both New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulates activities that occur in or near “Protected Waters” under Article 15, Title 5 – Environmental Conservation Law – 6NYCRR Part 608. Protected Waters are those waters classified by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as Category AA, AA(t), A, A(t), B, B(t), or C(t). Surface waters may also be designated as either Category C or D waters, which are not regulated under this part. The lowest water quality classification is D. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates activities within regulated surface waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act.

Surface waters that bisect NY 27 within the study area include the Patchogue River, Swan River, and Mud Creek in the western portion of the study area, the Carmans River in the central portion, and the Forge River in the eastern section of the study area. Based on the comparative qualitative analysis, the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads would result in the highest level of potential impacts to surface water resources, while the Near-Term “Build” Alternative would result in the lowest level of potential impact.

Navigable surface waters include all lakes, rivers, streams, and other bodies of water in the state that are navigable in fact or upon which vessels with a capacity of one or more persons can be operated notwithstanding interruptions to navigation by artificial structures, shallows, rapids or other obstructions, or by seasonal variations in capacity to support navigation. It does not include waters that are surrounded by land held in single private ownership at every point in their total area. There is no geographic information system layer specifically for navigable waters but based on this definition and previous field investigations, the Carmans River is likely the only navigable water located within the study area.

Scenic and Recreational Rivers The Carmans River is the only waterway within the study area designated as a Scenic and Recreational River, as indicated by the New York State Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System Act of 1989 (Title 27, Article 15, Environmental Conservation Law). The designated segments of the Carmans River within the study area are described as follows: · Scenic River Designation

Approximately 2½ miles from Yaphank Avenue, Suffolk County, southerly to the concrete wing dam in Southaven County Park; and

Approximately 2½ miles from the south side of Sunrise Highway, Suffolk County, southerly to the mouth of the river (a line between Long Point and Sandy Point) at its confluence with Great South Bay.


5-17

· Recreational River Designation

Approximately 1 mile southerly from the concrete wing dam in Southaven Park, Suffolk County, to Sunrise Highway.

Potential impacts to the segments of the Carmans River designated as Scenic or Recreational may require prior approval from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Divisions of Lands and Waters. Based on the comparative qualitative analysis, none of the alternatives would result in a significant impact to Scenic or Recreational River resources; however, more detailed analysis would be required when final construction impact plans associated with the selected alternative are available.

Coastal Resources The NY 27 corridor contains mapped significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat associated with the Swan River (in the eastern portion of the study area) and the Carmans River (within the central portion of the study area). This habitat is part of New York State’s Coastal Management Plan, which is administered by the New York State Department of State. Projects that may impact the habitat are reviewed by the New York State Department of State for consistency with the Coastal Management Plan.

The Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program, under the New York State Department of State, rates habitats using a quantitative system to identify the degree to which a habitat is essential to the survival of a large portion of a particular species; supports threatened or endangered species; supports populations that have significant commercial, recreational, or educational value, or exemplify a habitat type that is not commonly found in the state or coastal region. Proposed developments are reviewed on a case-by-case basis with respect to the critical parameters identified by the habitat designation. The New York State Department of State will recommend measures to mitigate potential impacts and may not approve projects that propose unavoidable adverse habitat impacts.

The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads would result in the highest level of impacts to the coastal resources associated with the Swan River within the western portion of the study area, due to the proposed multi-use path and service roads on the north side of NY 27. The Near-Term “Build” Alternative proposes the multi-use path and auxiliary lane directly adjacent to the north side of NY 27 with significantly less impact to the Swan River coastal resources. The Near-Term “Build” alternative also proposes no impacts to the coastal resources associated with the Carmans River within the central portion of the study area, while the other three alternatives propose multi-use paths along the north side of NY 27 within areas associated with the Carmans River coastal resources.

Farmland A visual analysis of the existing land cover mapping sources identified an area on the southeast quadrant of NY 27 and Barnes Road as cultivated croplands or farmlands. Impacts may occur in this area for all four proposed alternatives for the construction of the proposed Barnes Road interchange; however, more detailed analysis would be required when final construction impact plans associated with the selected alternative are available. Cultivated croplands were also identified north of the corridor but outside of the potential impact area.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplains The analysis for the presence of 100-year floodplains within the study area was performed through a review of available Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the National Flood Insurance Program (1996). There are 10 areas with mapped 100-year floodplains within the study area. These floodplains are associated with the Swan River, Beaverdam Creek, Little Neck Creek, Yaphank Creek, the Carmans River, the Forge River, Ely Creek, Old Neck Creek, Mud Creek, and the Peconic River. If development is proposed within the floodplain or floodway, the project must comply with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and local requirements, specifically the “no-rise” and/or “no adverse effect” criteria, by using the effective hydraulic


5-18

model. The hydraulic analysis can be reviewed at the local or state level. These floodplain areas are shown in the Appendix C.1 Inventory of Ecological Resources report.

Based on the comparative qualitative analysis, the Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads would result in the highest level of potential impacts to jurisdictional floodplains. The Near-Term “Build” Alternative would result in the lowest level of potential impacts.

Pine Barrens In 1990, the New York State Legislature passed the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act, and in 1993 amended the act as the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act to protect the largest remaining Long Island Pine Barrens region. The Central Pine Barrens Commission, under New York Environmental Conservation Law Article 57, produced and implements the Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan sets forth the procedures to be used by the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission for review of development in the Central Pine Barrens as provided for in the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act. The Long Island Pine Barrens provides a network of wetland and upland habitats that support regionally significant concentrations of rare wildlife and plant species.

The Central Pine Barrens is divided into two distinguishable areas referred to as the Core Preservation Area and Compatible Growth Area and are assigned a specific level of protective status respective to their titles. Development standards for projects within the Core Preservation Area or the Compatible Growth Area are defined in Volume I, Section 4 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Generally, development is prohibited within the Core Preservation Area without a hardship waiver while development within the Compatible Growth Area is subject to review by the Central Pine Barrens Commission.

A large section of Core Preservation Area is located within the central portion of the study area—north and south of the NY 27 corridor—and is generally associated with the Carmans River watershed. There is also a large section of Compatible Growth Area located within the eastern portion of the study area, north and adjacent to the NY 27 corridor. Based on the comparative qualitative analysis, none of the alternatives would result in significant impacts to the Core Preservation or Compatible Growth Areas of the Central Pine Barrens. However, more detailed analysis will be required during the preparation of the design approval documents necessary when final construction impact plans associated with the selected alternative are determined.

Forested Areas A visual analysis of the existing land cover mapping sources and the previous field investigation identified deciduous and evergreen forested areas with the central-western and eastern portions of the study area, north and south of the NY 27 corridor. Most of the large patches of forested land are fragmented by development and roadways and as a result, have become isolated from other large forest complexes; however, larger tracts, associated with Southaven County Park and Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, are centrally located along the Carmans River.

Based on the comparative qualitative analysis, the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads would potentially affect the highest acreage of forested area, while the Near-Term “Build” Alternative would result in the lowest level of potential impacts to forested areas.

Critical Environmental Areas Local agencies may designate specific geographic areas within their boundaries as Critical Environmental Areas. State agencies may also designate geographic areas they own, manage, or regulate. To be designated as a Critical Environmental Area, an area must have an exceptional or unique character with respect to one or more of the following:


5-19

· A benefit or threat to human health;

· A natural setting (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space and areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality);

· Agricultural, social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values; or

· An inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be adversely affected by any change.

Critical Environmental Areas are identified within Suffolk County on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation website at http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6184.html.

Based upon the comparative qualitative analysis, none of the alternatives would result in a significant impact to Critical Environmental Area resources. However, more detailed analysis will be required when final construction impact plans associated with the selected alternative are available. Table 5-12 identifies Critical Environmental Areas within the study area corridor that are listed on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation website.

Table 5-12: Critical Environmental Areas

Designating Agency

Name of Critical Environmental Area Location

Suffolk County Central Suffolk Pine Barrens in Brookhaven Town of Brookhaven Southaven County Park Victory Avenue, Brookhaven, NY Special Groundwater Protection Area Eastern Brookhaven, Southwestern Riverhead, and Western Southampton

Parkland A review of existing mapping sources and previously performed field investigations were conducted to identify and locate parklands and recreational areas within the study area. Mapping sources included County Road Maps, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Parks, recreational areas, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges were identified within the study area (Table 5-13):

Table 5-13: Parks and Preserves

Name of Park Acres

(if available) Type of Park Location

Long Island Pine Barrens 100,000 State

(New York State Department of Environmental Conservation)

Central and Eastern Brookhaven, Suffolk County, NY

Hampton Vistas Open Space 125 Municipal Eastport-Manor Road, Manorville, New York Southaven County Park 1,356 County Victory Avenue, Brookhaven, New York Twelve Pines Park & Open Space 90 Municipal Sipp Avenue and East Woodside Avenue,

Brookhaven, New York

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge 2,550 Federal (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Smith Road, Shirley, New York

Southaven County Park is also centrally located within the study area (north of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge), extending from Sunrise Highway in Brookhaven to Main Street in Yaphank, just north of I-495 (Long Island Expressway). The Carmans River flows north to south through this scenic, pine-oak forested park. This county-owned park consists of 1,356 acres, which preserves a variety of wildlife habitat as well

http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6184.html�


5-20

as provides public recreational opportunities such as fishing, canoeing, picnicking, horseback riding trails, hunting, and camping.

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge is one of the last undeveloped estuary systems remaining on Long Island. Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge consists of 2,550 acres and extends south from Montauk Highway and NY 27 (Sunrise Highway) in Brookhaven to Bellport Bay. Approximately one-half of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge contains a mixture of aquatic habitats, including bay with marine seagrass beds, intertidal salt marsh, high salt marsh, freshwater marsh, shrub swamp, and red maple swamp. The remaining half of the refuge consists of various rare Pine Barrens upland habitats. This national wildlife refuge protects the Carmans River Estuary for migratory bird species, including songbirds, raptors and shorebirds. About 300 bird species have been documented at the refuge. Additionally, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the refuge winters up to 5,000 waterfowl, a majority being the nationally declining black duck.

Based on the comparative qualitative analysis, none of the alternatives would result in a significant impact to parkland or recreational resources. However, more detailed analysis will be required when final construction impact plans associated with the selected alternative are available. If taking of any state- or federally-owned land, or land that was purchased with state money, is proposed, a further investigation should be performed to determine if Section 4(f) issues are applicable.

Remediation Sites Existing mapping was reviewed to determine the presence of hazardous or remediation sites within the study area. No sites were identified adjacent to the NY 27 corridor; however, six sites were mapped within the study area (Table 5-14).

Table 5-14: Remediation Sites

Remediation Site Name Remediation Program Former Bellport Gas Station Environmental Restoration Program Bianchi/Weiss Greenhouses State Superfund Program New York Pyrotechnics Product, Co. State Superfund Program Person & Turano Plating Specialists, Inc. State Superfund Program Precision Concepts, Inc. State Superfund Site LIRR Yaphank Station Voluntary Cleanup Program

Based on the comparative qualitative analysis, none of the alternatives would result in a significant impact to any of the listed remediation sites. However, more detailed analysis will be required when final construction impact plans associated with the selected alternative are available.

National Environmental Policy Act and State Environmental Quality Review Act Requirements Based on initial analysis of the proposed alternatives, state (State Environmental Quality Review Act) and federal (National Environmental Policy Act) environmental documentation requirements will likely consist of the following:

· Long-Term Alternatives – State Environmental Quality Review Act and National Environmental Policy Act environmental impact statement

· Short-Term Alternatives – State Environmental Quality Review Act environmental impact statement and National Environmental Policy Act environmental assessment


5-21

5.3.4 Cultural Resources Historic and Cultural Resources (NYSDOT) A cultural resource reconnaissance survey was completed in December 2010 for PIN 0058.08, NYS Route 27 Operational Improvement Study. This survey (Phases 1A and 1B) included an Architectural Survey for the entire NYS Route 27 (Sunrise Highway) study area and focused on both “prehistoric” and “historic” discoveries.

Prehistoric archeological finds are related to the discoveries of cultures that are pre-urban; by definition do not have contemporary economic and social records that can be consulted. Prehistory includes the Stone Age (also known as the Paleolithic period), hunter-gatherers, and the first farming communities. Historic archeological discoveries can be defined as any resource related to a culture with a written record. (Source: Kris Hurst)

The inventory assessed the prehistoric and historic sensitivity for the project area. The prehistoric sensitivity was rated “low to moderate” and is highest near intersecting waterways, the most prominent of which is the Carmans River in Southaven. The historic sensitivity was rated “low” since the project directly crosses only one community that has a documented historic occupation (Southaven), and passes well away from the historic core of another (Patchogue).

The archeological survey completed 5,274 shovel test pits and 95 surrounds (the surveying of areas adjacent to a potential resource discovered in a shovel test pit in a grid fashion until no additional resources are discovered), totaling 5,369 shovel test pits. There were four prehistoric sites and one historic site identified, all of which are recommended for further investigation should the NYSDOT progress projects in the area.

The architectural survey reviewed 268 properties in the project area. One National Register Listed/Eligible property was found and 11 were identified by the survey to be eligible for the register. Five National Register Listed/Eligible properties may be affected by the project.

The results of the cultural resource survey were reviewed for potential impacts from the proposed transportation improvements. One of the 11 architectural resources identified to be eligible/listed on the National Register—the “Jurgielewicz Duck Farm”—has the potential to be affected by the Barnes Road Interchange proposal, which includes new access ramps directly east of the farm entrance. The alignment of the new access ramps connecting to eastbound NY 27 should be designed to avoid indirect impacts to the farm. Preservation of the historic setting of Barnes Road along the farm could decrease the potential impacts to the site. The Swan Bluff Site, Oak Site, and Dain Site identified during the archeological portion of the survey could also be affected by all proposed transportation improvements; therefore, it is recommended that these sites proceed to a Phase II investigation when a preferred alternative is selected in preliminary design phases. The final archeological site, Stuyvesant Site, should only progress to a Phase II investigation if the high-occupancy vehicle lane is progressed with the currently proposed eastern terminus due to the potential need to locate noise barriers in the vicinity. The survey report can be found in Appendices C.2 through C.6.

5.3.5 “GreenLITES” Checklist NYSDOT—committed to improving the quality of our transportation infrastructure in ways that support a sustainable society—launched the GreenLITES Initiative (Green Leadership In Transportation Environmental Sustainability), a transportation environmental sustainability rating program that recognizes transportation project designs, operations, and maintenance practices that incorporate a high level of environmental sustainability.


5-22

An initial “GreenLITES” Checklist has been prepared for the NY 27 project based on the alternatives under consideration in this study, as presented in Appendix C.7. At subsequent phases of work, this checklist will be refined.

NYSDOT is one of 15 member agencies comprising the New York Climate Action Council, which (through Executive Order 24) will approve a final New York State greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast and the state’s Climate Action Plan, including a set of specific policy recommendations to achieve reduction targets and adaptation strategies.


6-1

CHAPTER 6 Evaluation of Alternatives 6.1 Measures of Effectiveness

Measures of effectiveness were defined for each project goal by the project team, in coordination with the Project Advisory Committee, as described in Section 2.3. These measures have been quantified for the existing NY 27 corridor under base year 2010 and future “No Build” 2035 conditions as well as for each “Build” Alternative. Comparisons have been prepared to identify the changes between forecast “No Build” 2035 conditions and “Build” Alternatives. These comparisons are summarized by project goal in this section and detailed in the Measures of Effectiveness Summary Table in Appendix D.1.

Goal A Provide safe and efficient transportation system for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists, transit users and goods

movement in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner.

Measure of Effectiveness 2035

No Build 2035

Near-Term

2035 Long-Term GPL + C-D

Roads

2035 Long-Term

GPL + Service Roads

2035 Long-Term HOVL + C-D

Roads 1. Safety – Average Annual Accidents, Study Corridor

15% increase 8% reduction from No Build

14% reduction from No Build



2. Congestion – Person Hours of Travel, Study Area

30% increase Same as No Build


1.5% reduction from No Build

5.5% reduction from No Build

3. Staging – Capable of Short, Medium and Long Term Implementation

— Yes

4. Return on Investment1 – Change in Average Annual Costs vs. Total Capital Costs

— -0.2% + $0.16M/$69M

13.3% $22M/$166M

4.6% $8.1M/$174M

12.1% $30.0M/$249M

1 Estimated Average Annual Cost Reductions including travel time, accidents, vehicle emissions, vs. total construction + ROW costs

Safety is measured by the average annual accidents along the study corridor. Estimates suggest the “No Build” Alternative would result in a 15 percent increase in accidents; the Near-Term “Build” Alternative an 8 percent reduction; and all of the Long-Term “Build” Alternatives a 14 percent reduction in accidents. . The “No Build” Alternative and the Near-Term “Build” Alternative are estimated to experience peak-period congestion increases of 30 percent over the “No Build” Alternative, while the Long-Term “Build” Alternatives are estimated to reduce congestion by 1.5 percent to 5.5 percent.

All alternatives are capable of being developed in different stages (short, medium and long term) depending on each improvement’s complexity and cost. One Measure of Effectiveness used to assess each alternative is the return on investment, which is the estimate reduction in average annual costs versus the total capital costs. The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads and the Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads provide the highest rates of return (13.3 percent and 12.1 percent, respectively), while the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads provides the lowest return on investment, 4.6 percent. The Near-Term “Build” Alternative provides a negative return on investment, indicating that the project elements are too costly for the benefits obtained.


6-2

Goal B Expand transportation options in the area, including transit (LIRR and Suffolk Transit), rideshare, and non-motorized

travel. Incorporate pertinent recommendations from relevant transit plans.


No Build 2035

Near-Term


Roads

2035 Long-Term

GPL + Service Roads


Roads 1. Transit Service Improvements

Assumes implementation of Suffolk Transit’s “Comprehensive Bus Route Analysis and Service Development Plan”

Extends Suffolk Clipper, provides new Express Bus Route; 39,000 boardings, initial phase

Extends Suffolk Clipper, provides new Express Bus Route; 61,600 boardings, final phase

2. Bicycle/Pedestrian Network

None 17 lane-miles Suffolk “Greenway”

3. Park and Ride Facilities None Express Bus P & R area at Mastic –Shirley LIRR Station, improves existing lot @ Medford Ave.

Transit service improvements have been estimated to provide the same amount of benefits for each of the Long-Term “Build” Alternatives, although the Near-Term “Build” Alternative would provide a lower number of transit passenger boardings since only the initial phase of improvements would be completed. The bicycle/pedestrian network and the park-and-ride facilities would provide the same amount of benefits for all the alternatives, Near-Term “Build” or Long-Term “Build,” as these improvements are common to each.

Goal C Incorporate accessibility and connectivity along the Route 27 corridor, including mainline, service roads, and local road network in a way sensible to local communities. Implement access management principals wherever practical.


No Build 2035

Near-Term


Roads

2035 Long-Term

GPL + Service Roads


Roads 1. Connect missing links – Miles of service road connecting local roadways

9.6 11.7 13.5 14.3 13.5

2. Reduce through travel on local streets – Traffic volumes

19% Increase Same as No Build

0.5% Increase from No Build

2% Increase from No Build

0.5% Increase from No Build

3. Address local access deficiencies Hospital Rd. Interchange — Yes Yes Yes Yes

William Floyd Parkway/CR 80 — Yes Yes Yes Yes Titmus Drive WB Access to NY 27 — Yes Yes Yes Yes

Moriches/Middle Island Road — No Yes Yes Yes Service Roads — Partially No.

Provides same function as

service roads.

Yes No. Provides same

function as service roads.

The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads offer the highest mileage of continuous service roads that connect “missing” links. Through-traffic volumes on local streets would increase by 19 percent in the “No Build” Alternative, and the same or slightly higher for each of the “Build” Alternatives.

The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads would completely address all of the identified local access deficiencies. The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads and Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads would address all but one of the identified


6-3

deficiencies, the lack of continuous service roads. However, the collector-distributor roads would provide the same primary function of the service road extensions, while reducing the amount of additional property acquisition required, as well as permitting the existing two-way service roads to service local traffic circulation.

Goal D Protect the environment, including water and air quality. Ensure mitigation of environmental impacts for public

benefits.


No Build 2035

Near-Term

2035 Long-Term GPL

+ C-D Roads

2035 Long-Term GPL + Service Roads


Roads 1. Impacts to Sensitive Areas – Wetlands Areas (acres)

— 1.3 1.9 3.0 1.9

2. Reduction to Vehicle Emissions1 – CO2 Emissions (tons/yr) (Change in Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel)

— +3,000 (Same as No Build)

-4,000 (-1%)

+10,000 (+%1)

+14,000 (+%1)

3. Other Impacts – Displaced Parkland, public spaces, etc.

— 0 0 0 0

1 Based on annual vehicle miles of travel in study area

Sensitive areas such as wetlands would be affected the most with the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads (approximately 3 acres), while the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads and Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads would affect 2 acres. Vehicle emissions would be approximately the same for each alternative. No other environmental impacts (displaced parkland or public spaces) are foreseen for the different alternatives.

Goal E Contribute to energy conservation. Reduce growth of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) throughout the corridor.


No Build 2035

Near-Term


Roads

2035 Long-Term

GPL + Service Roads


Roads 1. Drive-alone travel –

Study Area: Vehicle Miles Traveled, Single-Occupant Vehicles

14% increase from

Base Year

0.5 % increase from

No Build

0.5% Reduction from

No Build

1.3% increase from

No Build

1.6% increase from

No Build Study Corridor: Vehicle Miles Traveled,

Single-Occupant Vehicles, 12%

increase from Base Year

2.3 % increase from

No Build

8.3% increase from

No Build

7.2% increase from

No Build

3.6% increase from

No Build

The “No Build” Alternative would produce the highest increase in vehicle miles traveled along both the study area and study corridor. All the “Build” Alternatives would cause further increases in vehicle miles traveled although higher along the study corridor than within the overall study area.


6-4

Goal F Ensure no community, including any minority and low income neighborhood, is disproportionately impacted by

proposed projects.


No Build 2035

Near-Term


roads

2035 Long-Term

GPL + service roads


roads 1. ROW impacts – Property required (acres) — 15.8 16.9 19.3 16.9 2. Modified travel patterns impacts – Potential Noise Barriers (ft)

— 3,600 5,400 5,400 6,400

The amount of property required for each “Build” Alternative ranges from over 15 acres to over 19 acres. The most property required would be for the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads. Travel pattern modification impacts would be highest for the Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads (6,400 feet of potential future noise barriers required). The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads and the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with service roads would require a smaller length of potential future noise barriers (5,400 feet).

Goal G Provide positive benefits for special needs groups, including, but not limited to: aging population, and people with

disabilities.


No Build 2035

Near-Term

2035 Long-Term GPL

+ C-D Roads

2035 Long-Term GPL

+ Service Roads


Roads 1. Transit Service for special needs groups – Bus schedules, special needs groups

— With nine exceptions (of 51), proposed Suffolk Transit local bus routes serve all facilities in secondary and primary study areas. Of these, six are public schools, one is a library, and two are institutions

2. Roadway infrastructure for special needs groups – Specialized infrastructure

— New ramps and intersection modifications will be signed and lighted in accordance with latest NYSDOT design criteria

3. ADA design features – ADA infrastructure — Shared Use Paths will be designed to be ADA compliant

All “Build” Alternatives would provide benefits for special needs groups. Transit services provided would include Suffolk Transit local bus routes. Roadway infrastructure provided would include new ramps and intersection modifications designed according to the NYSDOT design criteria. Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant design features would be provided, including the shared-use paths.

Goal H Help to achieve local community development goals consistent with land-use visions, adopted zoning, and municipal

plans.


No Build 2035

Near-Term


roads

2035 Long-Term

GPL + service roads


roads 1. Town of Brookhaven 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Fundamental Principles

— Addresses Principal #1 to varying

degree

Best addresses Principal #1

Addresses Principal #1 to varying degree

Supports this Alternative

2. Consistency with plans, visions of villages, civic groups, and other stakeholders

— NP NP NP NP

NP – Input not provided


6-5

In addressing Goal H, the Town of Brookhaven, in its letter of March 10, 2011, provided the following comments:

“The State’s effort for long range infrastructure planning and sustainable improvements for all users along the Sunrise Highway corridor fully supports the Town guiding principle #6; “to expand the range of transportation options.”, as part of its Comprehensive Plan.

The public outreach component of this project and the process carried out by the State also fully satisfies principle #2; “builds consensus with residents, community leaders, stakeholders and public agencies.

Several project alternatives do address, to varying degrees, principle #1; “preserve and enhance open space, community character; ensuring environmental protection.” Some alternatives provide for greater compliance with this principle than other alternatives. It appears that the alternative with general-purpose lanes and collector-distributor roads best addresses this principle.

We are concerned with the potential for the public’s misperception that the appearance of infrastructure expansion directs growth away from existing downtowns or established centers. This would contradict principle #4 of the Brookhaven 2030 Fundamental Principles. We recognize that the Town maintains the control of land use and development growth that may address this matter.”

The remaining Principles are adequately supported by the project’s goals and objectives.

The staged improvements within this corridor over time will provide for improved safety and mobility for all users. We support those improvements that better manage and address transportation connectivity while enhancing multi-modal opportunities, reduce overall vehicle miles traveled, better manage vehicle intrusion (pass through and commercial traffic) into the residential areas, and improve the quality of life for the neighborhoods adjacent to the corridor. However, improvements that alter the existing transportation network raise concerns for street opening or closings that intersect with new service roads. In addition, ramp re-locations and new ramps may adversely impact existing connecting streets and will require additional review at time of preliminary design. Sidewalk provisions along the corridor, certainly supported, should be coordinated and reviewed with the Town’s policies and initiatives before final design or installation.

More important is the compliance with the Town’s objective to limit commercial/retail development along the corridor especially east of Station Road. In fact, the existing limited commercial/retail development potential at Station Road, Hospital Road and Sills Road (CR 101) will be managed by the Town in accordance with its adopted plans. We recognize that the local Township’s do control the zoning and development along the corridor.

We further recognize that commercial/industrial uses may be valuable at select/appropriate locations along the corridor as new infrastructure may provide direct connection with the Sunrise Highway system. Such development may provide the opportunity for economic growth and serve as a buffer/separation between the Highway and adjacent residential zones or uses.

However, the need for open space preservation and protection of the Central Pine Barrens environment is paramount in furtherance of and the extent of the infrastructure improvements contemplated in the future. This is especially critical east of the Station Road interchange. It appears that the potential for an extensive service road network and collector-distributor roadways may need to be mitigated. To that end, we support the alternative that includes consideration of a high-occupancy vehicle lane. “


6-6

Goal I Provide a safe and efficient transportation system for emergency services operations, and ensure consistency with

emergency management plans for the area.


No Build 2035

Near-Term


Roads

2035 Long-Term

GPL + Service Roads


Roads 1. Town of Brookhaven Roadway Evacuation Study — Fully Supports Fully Supports Fully Supports Fully Supports 2. Emergency providers — NP NP NP NP

3. Town of Brookhaven Emergency Preemption Program

— Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply


Goal J Identify and preserve existing transportation assets. Determine jurisdiction and future maintenance responsibilities for

any new assets built as a result of proposed improvements.


No Build 2035

Near-Term


Roads

2035 Long-Term

GPL + Service Roads


Roads Assets agreements – Percentage of facilities with maintenance commitment

— NP NP NP NP


In addressing Goal J in the above-noted letter, the Town of Brookhaven advised:

“The State’s effort for long range infrastructure planning and sustainable improvements for all users along the Sunrise Highway corridor will need to address the Town of Brookhaven’s, including the Town Highway Department, maintenance policies and capabilities.

The ability of absorbing additional maintenance and operating costs associated with new roadways, their intersections and all related appurtenances will be significantly impacted by budgetary and staffing limits of the Town of Brookhaven and thus require considerable review before any implementation of roadway improvements.

It is recognized that there are several provisions of State, County and Town Highway Law that govern jurisdictional and maintenance responsibilities for certain projects and roadway improvements. These matters need further review and resolve.”

Goal K

Foster a sense of place for area communities through public and private partnerships to preserve and enhance distinguishing amenities, aesthetics, historical context, and existing character.

Measure of Effectiveness

2035 No Build

2035 Near-Term

2035 Long-Term GPL +

C-D roads

2035 Long-Term GPL +

Service Roads

2035 Long-Term HOVL +

C-D Roads Community character — Landscaping,

Wayfinding signs along Shared Use and Bicycle Paths

Landscaping, Wayfinding signs along Shared Use and Bicycle Paths

Landscaping, Wayfinding signs along Shared Use and Bicycle Paths; removes section of wooded areas

Landscaping, Wayfinding signs along Shared Use and Bicycle Paths; removes section of wooded median


6-7

The sense of place of the communities along the project corridor would be maintained by providing new landscaping and signing along the shared-use and bicycle paths, as well as at new interchanges, service roads, and/or collector-distributor roads and ramps.

Goal L Protect the regional role of the Sunrise Highway Corridor.


No Build 2035

Near-Term

2035 Long-Term GPL

+ C-D Roads

2035 Long-Term GPL + Service Roads

2035 Long-Term HOVL

+ C-D Roads 1. Diversion of “through” trips from NY 27 Study Corridor

75% Mainline 76% Mainline 74% Mainline 76% Mainline 76% Mainline

2. Regional travel along NY 27 WB% Through 61% AM/39% PM 60% AM/39% PM 67% AM/49% PM 67% AM/49% PM 71% AM/49% PM EB% Through 21% AM/28% PM 21% AM/28% PM 21% AM/27% PM 21% AM/28% PM 22% AM/27% PM

The Sunrise Highway main roads would continue to serve through trips in the study corridor, accommodating approximately 75 percent of the total east-west through trips. Regional travel patterns would be consistent. Westbound through traffic in the AM peak period morning would increase from 61 percent in the “No Build” Alternative to 71 percent in the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads, while ranging from 39 percent to 49 percent in the PM peak period. Eastbound through trips are a significantly lower percentage of Sunrise Highway traffic during both peak periods, ranging from 21 percent in the AM to 28 percent in the PM.

6.2 Evaluation of Impacts of “Build” Alternatives

6.2.1 Near-Term “Build” Alternative The Near-Term “Build” Alternative would provide shared-use and bicycle paths for non-motorized uses and a limited number of improvements to NY 27, including auxiliary lanes, service road extensions and new interchanges at Titmus Drive and Barnes Road, and bridge widening at Titmus Drive.

Where improvements extend outside of the existing right-of-way, the Near-Term “Build” Alternative could require public easement and/or right-of-way acquisition of private property in several locations: · The northwest quadrant of the intersection of NY 27 and Station Road;

· The southwest quadrant of the intersection of NY 27 and CR 101 (East Patchogue-Yaphank Road);

· South of NY 27, between CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and Titmus Drive; and

· The southeast quadrant of NY 27 and Barnes Road.

In several locations, the construction of the shared-use path would bring a travel way closer to residents and businesses than currently exists, increasing non-motorized traffic but also providing greater access to facilities for bicycling and walking. This would occur on the north side of NY 27 between Phyllis Drive and Hewitt Avenue, Haig Avenue and East Patchogue–Yaphank Road, and Sunset Drive and Station Road.

Improvements south of NY 27 between CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and Titmus Drive would bring the service road much closer to a residential area than currently exists, but would improve access to the shopping center just west of Park Avenue (provided a roadway is constructed by private entities).

Improvements at the intersection of NY 27 and Barnes Road would affect an existing wooded area and sod farm in the southeast quadrant and would bring the roadway closer to residential areas; however, these improvements would also provide quicker access to NY 27 from areas to the east along CR 80 (Montauk Highway).


6-8

6.2.2 Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads

The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads would extend the existing median general-purpose lanes east from west of Hospital Road to east of Old Horseblock Road, and would create new collector-distributor roads in lieu of service roads. Improvements would also include the shared-use path for non-motorized uses, and improvements to roadway exit/entrance ramps, interchanges, intersection approaches, and bridge widenings at Hospital Road and Titmus Drive (by others).

This alternative would require public easement and/or right-of-way acquisition of private property in several locations where improvements would extend outside the existing right-of-way: · Northwest quadrant of NY 27 and Station Road

· Northwest quadrant of NY 27 and CR 16 (Old Horse Block Road)

· Southwest quadrant of NY 27 and CR 16 (Old Horse Block Road)

· South of NY 27 between CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and Titmus Drive; and

· Southeast quadrant of NY 27 and Barnes Road.

Planned improvements would bring the roadway closer to existing residential areas, businesses, or farmlands in the following locations: · Northwest quadrant of NY 27 and Station Road;

· South Village Drive (north of NY 27);

· Old Horse Block Road (south of NY 27);

· South of NY 27 between William Floyd Parkway and Titmus Drive; and

· South of NY 27 between Barnes Road and Jerusalem Hollow Road.

Similar to the Near-Term “Build” Alternative, the construction of the shared-use pathway would bring a travel way closer to residents and businesses than currently exists on the north side of NY 27 between Phyllis Drive and Hewitt Avenue, Haig Avenue and CR 101 (East Patchogue-Yaphank Road), and Sunset Drive and Station Road. Improvements south of NY 27 between CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and Titmus Drive would also bring the service road much closer to a residential area than currently exists.

Improvements at the intersection of NY 27 and Barnes Road would be the same as in the Near-Term “Build” Alternative, with the same impacts as described previously.

6.2.3 Long-Term General Purpose Lane with Service Roads The Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads would extend the general-purpose lanes as described in Section 4.1.3, as well as extend the existing north and south service roads, and would include the shared-use path for non-motorized uses and improvements including new auxiliary lanes, modified entrance/exit ramps, intersection approaches and bridge widening.

This alternative would have the same impacts and benefits as the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads, with several additional impacts: · Between Phyllis Road and Robinson Avenue, the shared-use path and new roadway would extend

outside the existing right-of-way to a greater degree and would therefore require additional easement or private property acquisition.


6-9

· The new service roads would be located closer to residential properties in areas between NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and Hospital Road, Phyllis Drive and Robinson Avenue, Sipp Avenue and CR 21 (Yaphank Road), CR 21 (Yaphank Road) and Station Road, and south of NY 27 at South Village Drive.

· Improvements between CR 21 (Yaphank Road) and Station Road would result in new access to and from residential areas north of NY 27. Businesses would experience better access to and from NY 27 at the southwest quadrant of NY 27 and Station Road.

6.2.4 Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads

The Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads would include all elements of the previously mentioned alternatives, except for the extension of a third eastbound and westbound lane for high-occupancy vehicles only within the NY 27 median from Phyllis Drive to east of CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway). This alternative would provide full buffer and shoulder areas between the general-purpose lanes and high-occupancy vehicle lanes.

Impacts and benefits resulting from this alternative would be similar to either the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads or the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads, depending on whether collector-distributor roads or service roads are implemented. In addition, the high-occupancy vehicle lanes would affect the function and appearance of the existing median between the eastbound and westbound roadways. Currently, the median consists of a 66-foot mown-grass area between the two roadways. East of Gerard Road, there are tall evergreen trees in the median. Removing the existing trees would alter the pleasing visual appearance of the roadway. Roadway treatments under this alternative would provide landscaping in the modified median area.

6.3 Order-of-Magnitude Cost Estimates

6.3.1 Construction Costs Order-of-magnitude construction cost estimates were prepared using the Advanced Conceptual Design Plans sheets for each “Build” Alternative to develop quantity estimates for the proposed new main roadways, service and collector–distributor roads, interchange ramps, pedestrian/bicycle paths, bridges and other structures, as well as ancillary facilities including traffic control signing and signals, pavement markings, and new INFORM ITS items. Available 2010 unit-cost, bid-price data obtained from NYSDOT Region 10 sources were used and applied to the estimated quantities. Percentages were applied for utility relocations, drainage, engineering, and contingencies. The detailed plan sheet cost estimates for each alternative (by estimated quantity items) are provided in Appendix D.2. The resulting construction cost estimates are summarized in Table 6-1.

6.3.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition Costs Existing NY 27 right-of-way lines as well as adjacent property lines were added to the base maps used for the Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, to determine the locations and limits of potential right-of-way acquisitions for each “Build” Alternative. These areas, shown in the plans provided in Appendices B.4 through B.7, were used by NYSDOT Region 10 to prepare order-of-magnitude real estate cost appraisals for each identified parcel. These costs were applied to the computed areas, resulting in the right-of-way acquisition cost estimates presented in Table 6-2.


6-10

Table 6-1: Order of Magnitude Construction Cost Estimate

Alternative General Purpose

or HOV Lanes C-D or

Service Roads Ramps Pedestrian/Bicycle

Facilities Bridge/Structures Total Near-Term 2015–2020 NT-001 $3,200,000 $600,000 $600,000 — $400,000 $4,800,000 NT-002 $2,200,000 $5,800,000 $3,200,000 — — $11,200,000 NT-003 $1,000,000 $10,200,000 $4,200,000 — — $15,400,000 NT-004 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $6,000,000 — $5,000,000 $13,200,000 Multi-Use and Bicycle Path — — — $9,400,000 — $9,400,000

TOTAL $7,400,000 $17,800,000 $14,000,000 $9,400,000 $5,400,000 $54,000,000 General Purpose Lane Extension With C-D Roads GPL-001 $13,600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $3,800,000 $7,000,000 $25,600,000 GPL-002 $17,900,000 $12,200,000 $5,000,000 $1,400,000 — $36,500,000 GPL-003 $16,200,000 — $1,500,000 $3,100,000 — $20,800,000 GPL-004 $7,600,000 $2,700,000 $3,700,000 $700,000 — $14,700,000 GPL-005 $3,600,000 $10,200,000 $4,200,000 $400,000 — $18,400,000 GPL-006 $3,600,000 $1,200,000 $6,000,000 $100,000 $5,000,000 $15,900,000 GPL-007 $3,600,000 $6,200,000 $1,700,000 — — $11,500,000 Wading River Road: WRR-01 $3,000,000 — $3,400,000 — — $6,400,000

TOTAL $69,100,000 $33,100,000 $26,100,000 $9,500,000 $12,000,000 $149,800,000 General Purpose Lane Extension With Service Roads GPL-008 $13,400,000 $3,600,000 $800,000 $3,700,000 $7,000,000 $28,500,000 GPL-009 $17,900,000 $16,800,000 $4,100,000 $1,400,000 — $40,200,000 GPL-010 $16,200,000 — $2,700,000 $3,100,000 — $22,000,000 GPL-011 $7,600,000 $2,700,000 $3,700,000 $700,000 — $14,700,000 GPL-012 $3,600,000 $10,200,000 $4,200,000 $400,000 — $18,400,000 GPL-013 $3,600,000 $1,200,000 $6,000,000 $100,000 $5,000,000 $15,900,000 GPL-014 $3,600,000 $6,200,000 $1,700,000 — — $11,500,000 Wading River Road: WRR-01 $3,000,000 — $3,400,000 — — $6,400,000

TOTAL $68,900,000 $40,700,000 $26,600,000 $9,400,000 $12,000,000 $157,600,000 HOV Lane Extension With Collector / Distributor Roads HOV-001 $19,800,000 $600,000 $600,000 $3,800,000 $7,000,000 $31,800,000 HOV-002 $29,800,000 $12,200,000 $5,000,000 $1,400,000 — $48,400,000 HOV-003 $25,700,000 — $1,500,000 $3,100,000 — $30,300,000 HOV-004 $25,300,000 $2,700,000 $3,700,000 $700,000 — $32,400,000 HOV-005 $24,900,000 $10,200,000 $4,200,000 $400,000 — $39,700,000 HOV-006 $11,100,000 $1,200,000 $6,000,000 $100,000 $5,000,000 $23,400,000 HOV-007 $3,600,000 $6,200,000 $1,700,000 — — $11,500,000 Wading River Road: WRR-01 $3,000,000 — $3,400,000 — — $6,400,000 Shoulder Hardening West of Route 112 $9,100,000 — — — — $9,100,000

TOTAL $152,300,000 $33,100,000 $26,100,000 $9,500,000 $12,000,000 $233,000,000


6-11

Table 6-2: Location and Estimated Order of Magnitude Costs of Potential ROW Takings

Sheet Number

Potential ROW Taking

Type of Proposed Work

that Affect Private Property Location

Area (Ac.) Cost Basis

Build Alternative: Near-Term (2015-2020) NT-001 Yes Multi-Use Path See Multi-Use Path * NT-002 Yes C/D Road South side of Sunrise Highway between Sipp Avenue and CR 21 (Yaphank Road) 2.65 $1,043,305 $/acre + Legal/Damages

Yes Multi-Use Path See Multi-Use Path * NT-003 None Expected — — — — — NT-004 Yes Ramp South side of Sunrise Highway between Barnes Road and Moriches-Middle Island 10.88 $4,000,000 Lump Sum Multi-Use and Bike Path

Yes Multi-Use Path North side of Sunrise Highway between Phyllis Drive and Hewlett 1.03 $1,199,212 $/acre + Legal/Damages

Yes Multi-Use Path North side of Sunrise Highway between CR 21 (Yaphank Road) and Station Road 1.22 $800,000 Lump Sum

Other (Appraisals, title searches, interest, claims, etc.) $5,000,000 Total Acreage 15.78 $12,042,517

Build Alternative: General Purpose Lanes with C-D Roads GPL-001 Yes Multi-Use Path North side of Sunrise Highway between Phyllis Drive and Hewlett 1.03 $1,199,212 $/acre + Legal/Damages GPL-002 Yes C/D Road Southside of Sunrise Highway between Sipp Avenue and CR 21 (Yaphank Road) 2.65 $1,043,305 $/acre + Legal/Damages

Yes Ramp North side of Sunrise Highway between CR 21 (Yaphank Road) and Station Road 1.22 $800,000 Lump Sum GPL-003 None Expected — — — — — GPL-004 None Expected — — — — — GPL-005 None Expected — — — — — GPL-006 Yes Ramp Southside of Sunrise Highway between Barnes Road and Moriches-Middle Island 10.88 $4,000,000 Lump Sum

GPL-007 Yes Service Road North side of Sunrise Highway from just West of Moriches-Middle Island Road to Jerusalem Hollow Road 1.11 $700,000 $/acre + Legal/Damages

WRR-01 None Expected — — — — —



6-12

Table 6-2: Location and Estimated Order of Magnitude Costs of Potential ROW Takings (continued)

Sheet Number

Potential ROW Taking

Type of Proposed Work

that Affect Private Property Location

Area (Ac.) Cost Basis

Build Alternative: General Purpose Lanes with Service Roads GPL-008 Yes Multi-Use Path North side of Sunrise Highway between Phyllis Drive and Hewlett 2.29 $1,750,000 $/acre + Legal/Damages GPL-009 Yes C/D Road South side of Sunrise Highway between Sipp Avenue and CR 21 (Yaphank Road) 3.81 $1,500,000 $/acre + Legal/Damages

Yes Ramp North side of Sunrise Highway between CR 21 (Yaphank Road) and Station Road 1.22 $800,000 Lump Sum GPL-010 None Expected — — — — — GPL-011 None Expected — — — — — GPL-012 None Expected — — — — — GPL-013 Yes Ramp South side of Sunrise Highway between Barnes Road and Moriches-Middle Island 10.88 $4,000,000 Lump Sum

GPL-014 Yes Service Road North side of Sunrise Highway from just West of Moriches-Middle Island Road to Jerusalem Hollow Road 1.11 $700,000 $/acre + Legal/Damages



Build Alternative: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes with C-D Roads HOV-001 Yes Multi-Use Path North side of Sunrise Highway between Phyllis Drive and Hewlett 1.03 $1,199,212 $/acre + Legal/Damages HOV-002 Yes C/D Road Southside of Sunrise Highway between Sipp Avenue and CR 21 (Yaphank Road) 2.65 $1,043,305 $/acre + Legal/Damages

Yes Ramp North side of Sunrise Highway between CR 21 (Yaphank Road) and Station Road 1.22 $800,000 Lump Sum HOV-003 None Expected — — — — — HOV-004 None Expected — — — — — HOV-005 None Expected — — — — — HOV-006 Yes Ramp South side of Sunrise Highway between Barnes Road and Moriches-Middle Island 10.88 $4,000,000 Lump Sum

HOV-007 Yes Service Road North side of Sunrise Highway from just West of Moriches-Middle Island Road to Jerusalem Hollow Road 1.11 $700,000 $/acre + Legal/Damages


Other (Appraisals, title searches, interest, claims, etc.) $5,000,000 Total Acreage 16.89 $12,742,517 * Potential easement


6-13

6.4 Early Implementation Projects

Several of the improvements identified in the transportation demand management, transportation system management, and “Build” concepts described in Chapter 4 could be implemented as low- to medium-cost actions to address current and near-term traffic operations and safety problems. These are recommended for further engineering study, plan preparation, and implementation. These include:

6.4.1 Transportation Demand Management · Construction of the “Sunrise Greenway”, along the north side of NY 27 from CR 19 (Waverly Avenue)

to Titmus Drive/Winters Drive, in stages. Estimated total construction plus ROW cost = $11.4 Million.

· Extension of the existing Suffolk Clipper Express Bus service east to serve the existing park-and-ride lot located at Exit 53 of NY 27 (Sunrise Highway), adjacent to NY 112 (Medford Avenue), then east to serve a park-and-ride lot at the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station. Estimated total equipment plus construction cost = $.5 Million, estimated annual operating cost =$130,000.

· Implementation of a new express bus service between the LIRR Ronkonkoma Station, the existing park-and-ride lot located near the intersection of NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and NY 27, and a park-and-ride lot at the LIRR Mastic-Shirley Station. Estimated total cost = $2.5 Million, estimated annual operating cost = $346,000.

· Continuation of the existing 511 NY Rideshare, Guaranteed Ride Program, Commuter Choice Program, and Long Island Region Improving Commuting (LIRIC) Grant Program.

6.4.2 Transportation Systems Management · Traffic signal timing and phasing optimization, including emergency vehicle pre-emption. (By Suffolk

County and Town of Brookhaven)

· Extension of the INFORM advanced transportation management and information system to serve the NY 27 study corridor. Estimated total cost = $14.1 Million.

· Extension of the H.E.L.P. (Highway Emergency Local Patrol) service to the NY 27 study corridor. Assuming that the current public-private partnership continues, the governmental share of expanding the Highway Emergency Local Patrol (HELP) program is estimated at $100,000 annually.

6.4.3 Roadway Construction Projects Proceeding from east to west, these include:

· Constructing an additional westbound auxiliary lane between the end of the westbound entrance ramp from Hospital Road to the westbound exit ramp to the Sunrise Highway north service road just east of Phyllis Drive. (See Appendix B.4, Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, Drawing No. NT-001).

· Widening intersection approach (currently being planned and designed by the Town of Brookhaven) and optimizing traffic signal timing at the Hospital Road north and south service road intersections. (See Appendix B.4, Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, Drawing No. NT-001).

· Constructing an extended Sunrise Highway south service road extension from the CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) interchange northbound to eastbound entrance ramp to Titmus Drive, including relocating this entrance ramp to a location just east of the NYSDOT Maintenance Yard. (See Appendix B.4, Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, Drawing No. NT-003).

· Constructing a westbound entrance ramp from Victory Avenue just west of Titmus Drive, including a continuation as an auxiliary lane west to the westbound exit ramp to Victory Avenue just east of CR


6-14

46 (William Floyd Parkway). (See Appendix B.4, Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, Drawing No. NT-003).

· Widening the south side of Victory Avenue between Titmus Drive and the proposed new westbound entrance ramp from two to three lanes, and widening the Titmus Drive Bridge and roadway between Victory Avenue and the proposed new south service road intersections from two to three lanes. (See Appendix B.4, Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, Drawing No. NT-003).

The estimated construction and right-of-way costs for these potential early implementation roadway construction projects are summarized in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3: Early Implementation Roadway Construction Cost Estimate

Construction Cost Estimate

Right-of-Way Cost Estimate Total

1. Construction of an additional westbound auxiliary lane between the end of the westbound entrance ramp from Hospital Road to the westbound exit ramp to the Sunrise Highway North Service Road just east of Phyllis Drive. (See Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, Drawing No. NT-001)

$3,799,035 $0 $3,799,035

2. Intersection approach widening and traffic signal timing optimization at the Hospital Road North and South Service Road intersections. (See Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, Drawing No. NT-001)

$1,015,840 $0 $1,015,840

3. Construction of an extended Sunrise Highway South Service Road extension from the William Floyd Parkway interchange northbound to eastbound entrance ramp to Titmus Drive, including relocation of this entrance ramp to a location just east of the NYSDOT Maintenance Yard. (See Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, Drawing No. NT-003)

$12,669,028 $0 $12,669,028

4. Construction of a westbound entrance ramp from Victory Avenue just west of Titmus Drive, including a continuation as an auxiliary lane west to the westbound exit ramp to Victory Avenue just east of William Floyd Parkway. (See Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, Drawing No. NT-003)

$3,013,282 $0 $3,013,282

5. Widening of the south side of Victory Avenue between Titmus Drive and the proposed new westbound entrance ramp from two to three lanes; Widening the Titmus Drive Bridge and roadway between Victory Avenue and the proposed new South Service Road intersections from two to three lanes. (See Advanced Conceptual Design Plans, Drawing No. NT-003)

$5,617,612 $0 $5,617,612

TOTAL $26,114,797 $0 $26,114,797

6.5 Funding Sources

At present, funds for New York State transportation infrastructure improvements are constrained. Funding sources, which could potentially be secured for future NY 27 improvements include New York State Dedicated Funds, National Highway System Funds, and Surface Transportation Program Funds.

New York State Dedicated Funds are available for highway improvement projects throughout the state. The National Highway System provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the National Highway System, including the Interstate System and designated connections to major intermodal terminals. National Highway System funds may also be used for transit improvements in National Highway System corridors.

The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible federal funding that may be used by states and localities for projects on federal-aid highway, including the National Highway System, bridge projects on any federal road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities.


6-15

The Congestion and Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program provides federal funding to state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations, and their project sponsors for a growing variety of projects. Each year’s Congestion and Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funding is distributed to the states via a statutory formula for projects that provide documentable air quality benefits.

The Highway Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement Program provides federal funding for the widening or replacement of some bridges under specific circumstances and could potentially be used to support future transportation projects in the study area.


7-1

CHAPTER 7 Public Involvement Public involvement is a vital component of the NYSDOT Sunrise Highway Corridor Sustainable Transportation Study and was strongly encouraged to obtain input on local issues that helped to preserve and enhance the historic, scenic, social, economic, and aesthetic characteristics of the study corridor.

7.1 Project Advisory Committee

A Project Advisory Committee, comprising local agencies, elected officials, civic and business organizations and other key informed stakeholders, was established to maintain an ongoing dialogue and reach consensus on a comprehensive range of anticipated recommendations (Table 7-1).

Table 7-1: Project Advisory Committee Invitees

Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organization Brookhaven Coalition of Chambers Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 1 Eastern Suffolk BOCES Long Island Neighborhood Network Long Island Regional Planning Board MTA Long Island Rail Road New York State Assembly – 1st District New York State Assembly – 2nd District New York State Assembly – 3rd District New York State Senate – 1st District New York State Senate – 3rd District Suffolk County Department of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Executive Suffolk County Legislative District 1 Suffolk County Legislative District 3 Suffolk County Legislative District 7 Suffolk County Police Department Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office Sustainable Long Island The Long Island Association Town of Brookhaven – Council District 1 Town of Brookhaven – Council District 2 Town of Brookhaven – Council District 3 Town of Brookhaven – Council District 4 Town of Brookhaven – Council District 5 Town of Brookhaven – Council District 6 Town of Brookhaven – Department of Planning, Environment and Land Management Town of Brookhaven – Town Supervisor Tri-State Transportation Campaign United States Congress – New York 1st District Village of Bellport, Mayor Village of Patchogue, Mayor Vision Long Island

Project Advisory Committee meetings were held over the course of the study at Briarcliffe College in Patchogue, New York on March 20, 2009, February 10, 2010, April 8, 2010, and January 20, 2011. These


7-2

meetings allowed Project Advisory Committee members the opportunity to suggest and discuss issues or areas they wanted the study team to evaluate. Project Advisory Committee members were given the opportunity to evaluate traffic analysis and forecasting results for the current and future transportation alternatives, to provide feedback on issues identified by them and the public as areas of concern, and to highlight specific issues to be addressed as part of the study. Project Advisory Committee members were also key players in refining the goals and measures of effectiveness, which included among other topics the environment, the transportation network, safety, and social justice. They also provided comments and recommendations on the conceptual design sketch plans presented in April 2010 that led to the development of the advanced conceptual design plans for the four “Build” Alternatives. The Project Advisory Committee members were presented with the advanced concept plans, order-of-magnitude cost estimates, and measures of effectiveness for the “Build” Alternatives at the January 20, 2011 meeting. It was requested that each member review the quantitative measures and provide feedback on the qualitative measures by the end of January 2011.

Feedback received from PAC members included:

· Recognition that according to the MOEs, the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Collector-Distributor Roads scored higher than the Long-Term General Purpose Lane “Build” Alternative with Service Roads and the Long-Term High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane “Build” Alternative with either Collector-Distributor Roads or Service Roads;

· Interest in interchange improvements at Titmus Road, Barnes Road and Moriches–Middle Island Road;

· Need for compliance with the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission, which has jurisdiction for review of activities that constitute development in the Central Pine Barrens, including areas in the vicinity of Southaven County Park, Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, and Wading River Road. (See Appendix E.1 and E.2 for a list of recommendations and potential mitigation measures and enhancements provided by the Central Pine Barrens Commission and Appendix E.5 for a letter of concerns from Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge.);

· Letter of March 10, 2011 from Town of Brookhaven (see Section 6.1); and

· Need for further discussion regarding maintenance responsibilities and requirements.

The comments received at and subsequent to the January 20, 2011 PAC meeting were incorporated into a draft study report and appendices, which were distributed to the PAC members on April 22, 2011 (see Appendix E.4).

7.2 Public Meetings

The study team organized and held public meetings to establish an open and ongoing communication with stakeholders. This communication and input ensured the plans met local and community goals and aided in building consensus as alternatives were developed. Public meetings allowed the study team to introduce the project to the public and define the study area, clarify the alternatives analysis process, answer questions, gain attendees’ feedback and local expertise, and explain the Public Involvement Program.

Public meetings were held on April 28 and April 29, 2009 at locations at each end of the study area to make it as convenient as possible for community members to attend and participate. The April 28th public meeting was held at the William Floyd Middle School in Moriches, New York, and the April 29th public meeting was held at Briarcliffe College in Patchogue, New York. Attendees were notified by advertisements in several local publications, through invitation letters, via the NYSDOT website, fliers in community centers, libraries, transit stops and retail establishments, and variable message signs positioned on NY 27 and other roadways within the study area.


7-3

Over 130 people attended the public meetings and provided comments and statements through public comments, private comments to a stenographer, written correspondence or email correspondence. One hundred completed surveys and over 80 oral testimonies were received at the public meetings and entered into an evolving Public Comment Log, which tracked comments by topic including public transit, service roads, or a specific location such as Hospital Road. Contact information gathered from stakeholders at these meetings further expanded the database allowing the study team to reach more people and gain additional input. The Public Comment Log is provided in Appendix E.6. Copies of letters and emails received subsequent to these meetings are provided in Appendix E.7.

7.3 Online Surveys

Online surveys were created and publicized to gain additional feedback on specific areas of criteria regarding possible alternatives, locations, funding, and quality of life related to the study. Fliers were posted in English and Spanish throughout the study area libraries, religious and community centers as well as transit hubs such as LIRR stations and Suffolk County bus shelters. Fliers were also posted in fire stations, emergency medical services centers, government buildings, restaurants, grocery stores, home improvement stores, and laundry facilities.

Two surveys were posted online for several weeks each during the course of the study. The first online survey was posted in the winter 2009–2010 and resulted in nearly 1,250 completed surveys and over 450 additional written comments. When asked to rank the importance of methods to help manage and improve transportation within the Sunrise Highway corridor, respondents gave the highest degree of importance to the expansion of the road network, followed by the improvement of roadway safety and then the protection of the natural environment. Respondents also provided feedback on improvement ideas, and prioritized the William Floyd Parkway interchange, the widening of the Hospital Road Bridge, and the addition of a lane to Sunrise Highway east of NY 112/Medford Avenue.

The second online survey was posted in the summer 2010 and received nearly 1,700 completed surveys and nearly 600 comments. Areas of interest were tracked in the Public Comment Log. As with the first online survey, when asked, survey respondents strongly supported the expansion of the road network. When asked to rank the importance of more detailed transportation improvements within the Sunrise Highway corridor, respondents indicated that modifications to interchanges were the most important and continuous one-way service roads and an auxiliary lane between Hospital Road and NY 112 (Medford Avenue) were the second and third most important, respectively. Respondents also preferred the addition of a new general use lane over making no changes to NY 27, making only minor safety improvements and extending the high-occupancy vehicle system. Appendices E.8 through E.11 include the surveys and some of the results.

Feedback received via these surveys was used by the study team to identify improvements that would be considered useful alternatives to the public and those that would not. Surveys were advertised through an e-mail campaign and postcard distribution to participants included in a database, variable message signs, fliers and the NYSDOT website. Free radio spots and print and televised media coverage were also received because of widespread interest. Contact information gathered from stakeholders through these surveys nearly tripled the size of the mail contacts and quadrupled the email contacts allowing the study team to reach more people and gain more input.

7.4 Project Phone Line, E-mail Address, Website and Small Group Meetings

A project phone hotline (631-952-6234) was in place throughout the study and served as a communication vehicle for the public to ask about the study or leave their comments. The phone hotline was monitored several times per week and inquiries were followed up on within 72 hours and logged into a database for documentation.


7-4

The project email address ([email protected]) allowed the public to communicate directly with the study team, and served as another communication vehicle for the public to leave comments or ask questions in a personal and timely manner. The email address was monitored throughout the project and inquires were addressed and followed up on with within 24 hours.

A project website (www.nysdot.gov/NY 27corridorstudy) was in place throughout the study and was used as a resource depository allowing the public to learn more about the study, direct viewers to participate in the online survey and gain access to study materials. The website allowed the public to obtain information about the study and its process in a timely and convenient manner. Website information was updated throughout the course of the study and included materials such as presentations from Public or Project Advisory Committee meetings, links to other related area studies or land development plans, online surveys, etc. The website also provided information on all communication means available to reach the study team.

All materials produced as part of the study were consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was passed with the intent to prevent discrimination by government agencies. Online surveys were produced to be easily usable by those with visual impairments and were translatable into Spanish as the study area Limited English Proficiency qualifying communities. All survey and meeting advertisements were produced in both English and Spanish, and the study website and phone line both included directions on how to obtain information in the Spanish language.

Public meetings were held in locations that are fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act to ensure any person who wished to attend could fully participate,

The study team offered to meet with any members of the general public or organized groups (i.e., civic groups, educators, etc). NYSDOT regularly participates in the Brookhaven Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings, one of which included discussion of the Sunrise Greenway proposal.

Two public meetings held by the Town of Brookhaven were attended by the study team. The first meeting was on November 19, 2009, concerning the “Widening of the Hospital Road Bridge over Sunrise Highway Public Information Meeting” to discuss planned near-term and long-term improvements. Near-term improvements included widening of the bridge approaches to include two lanes in each direction that merge into one at the existing bridge; new left turn lanes on Hospital Road at the north and south service roads; a new left turn lane on the south service road eastbound approach to Hospital Road; relocation of the Sunrise Highway off-ramp for CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road); and an entrance ramp onto NY 27 from Hospital Road and an exit ramp off NY 27 to CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road/Sills Road). Long-term improvements included the widening of the bridge. The meeting included one presentation board to explain the Sunrise Highway study and how it was independent from the Widening of the Hospital Road Bridge project. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, an economic stimulus package enacted by Congress in February 2009, provides for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants. The Town of Brookhaven applied for TIGER grants for the funding necessary to widen the bridge. However, funding was not received.

On January 14, 2010, the Public Information Meeting for the Draft Brookhaven Evacuation Study was held to discuss proposed roadway improvements. NYSDOT attended Brookhaven Evacuation Study meetings since the establishment of the task force and briefed attendees at several meetings in 2009 and 2010. The work of this task force resulted in a report titled the Roadway Evacuation Study, Hamlets of Shirley, Mastic and Mastic Beach. Improvements recommended in this report included construction of an entrance ramp on the north side of NY 27 (westbound) either just west of the Titmus Drive Bridge or between the Titmus Drive and Barnes Road bridges; delineation of the existing William Floyd Parkway shoulder as an emergency third lane during an evacuation; and construction of a temporary at-grade railroad crossings at either Madison or Hawthorne Streets.

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.nysdot.gov/ny27corridorstudy�


7-5

The study team also held two meetings with the Town of Brookhaven, one in April 6, 2009 and the other in July 22, 2009, to discuss the Town of Brookhaven socioeconomic control data for travel demand forecasts. During these meetings, the Town of Brookhaven confirmed the study team’s use of 2030 socioeconomic forecasts prepared by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, which included households and employment by Transportation Analysis Zone and incorporated approved developments with significant trip generation potential.

On July 28, 2009, a meeting was held with MTA LIRR to provide an overview of the project and discuss potential changes to transit operations for the area and infrastructure improvements for better access to stations. Best Practice Model projections were discussed and it was agreed to include the East Side Access project as part of the “No Build” Alternative, and double track from Farmingdale to Ronkonkoma and a third track for the East Side Access project as part of the “Build” Alternative. MTA LIRR confirmed that most study area residents commonly drive to the Ronkonkoma station rather than using the other three stations in the area. MTA forecasts a 2 percent ridership growth at stations in the electrified areas and 3.5 percent growth in diesel areas.

Two meetings were held with Suffolk County personnel to discuss the project, and its benefits and impacts to the county. At the July 27, 2009 meeting, transportation studies and projects being developed by the county were discussed. These projects included a project on CR 80 (Montauk Highway) from NY 112 (Medford Avenue) to CR 101 (Patchogue-Yaphank Road), a project on CR 80 (Montauk Highway) from CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) to Barnes Road, and a project on CR 46(William Floyd Parkway) at Moriches Middle Island Road south of the LIRR bridge, all of which are part of the “No Build” Alternative. The reduction from five to three lanes on CR 99 (Woodside Avenue) from east of NY 112 to CR 16 (Horseblock Road) project is part of the “Build” Alternative. Discussion was also held about the two conceptual transportation improvements, the Collector-Distributor Roads and Near-Continuous Service Roads. It is noted that Suffolk County has completed the following two projects; CR 80 (Montauk Highway) between CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) and Barnes Road and CR 99 (Woodside Avenue) between NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and CR 16 (Horseblock Road). The remaining project along CR 80 (Montauk Highway) between NY 112 (Medford Avenue) and CR 101 (East Patchogue-Yaphank Road) is currently under construction. In addition, a modified project on CR 46 (William Floyd Parkway) between the LIRR bridge and Moriches-Middle Island Road may be scheduled on or about 2013.

The second meeting was held on November 23, 2009, with the Suffolk County Department of Public Works to discuss the Suffolk County Transit Public Bus System Report as it related to the NY 27 project. As discussed, Suffolk County’s report includes implementation of proposed bus service changes for the next five and ten years including, among other things, the addition of more frequent service, new service, Sunday service, and changes to bus routes (Clipper, S61 and S71). It was agreed that the inclusion of Ronkonkoma service on the Clipper bus route will be reported as a “possibility that requires further study.”


8-1

CHAPTER 8 Next Steps 8.1 Near–Term Improvements

The four projects identified in Section 6.4 could be advanced to preliminary engineering and environmental study phases I-IV, pending the availability of funding from the sources listed in Section 6.5, primarily highway safety/high accident locations.

8.2 Long-Term Improvements, Funding, and Implementation Staging

The long-term, higher capital and operating cost improvements include the NY 27 additional main roadway lanes, collector-distributor roads or service road extensions, interchange modifications, new or widened bridges, express bus service, and INFORM System expansion. All of these are dependent on the State’s capital and operating funding availability and resulting capital program over the next 20 to 25 years. Assuming funds become available for capital improvements along the NY 27 study corridor, projects could be implemented and it is the recommendation of this study that NYSDOT, start with the interchange improvements, followed by the collector-distributor or service roads, and lastly, the additional main roadway lanes. If funds become available to support annual transit operating costs, after the Near-Term improvement to the westbound main roadway west of Hospital Road is achieved, the new express bus proposal and extended Suffolk Clipper express bus proposal could be implemented.

8.3 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction Agreements

To ensure that all newly built roadway improvements in the corridor are maintained at existing or future standards, maintenance agreements would be required between the NYSDOT and the Town of Brookhaven and/or Suffolk County as appropriate.

august 2011 - nysdot home...2011/08/10 · august 2011 final report p.i.n. 0059.08 acknowledgements...

Documents