cover page volume i - new york state department of ... · volume i pin 0006.11.121 ocean parkway...

TRANSPORTATION

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT

VOLUME I

PIN 0006.11.121

OCEAN PARKWAY SHARED-USE PATHWANTAGH STATE PARKWAY TO

ROBERT MOSES CAUSEWAYNASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES

IN COOPERATION WITH THE TOWNS OF ISLIP, BABYLON,OYSTER BAY AND HEMPSTEAD

JUNE 2008

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDavid A. Paterson, Governor Astrid C. Glynn, Commissioner

June 2008 Initial Project Proposal/Final Design Report PIN 00006.11

LIST OF PREPARERSGroup Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document:

Mark Bocamazo, P.E., Regional Design Engineer, NYSDOT Region Ten Design

Note: It is a violation of law for any person, unless they are acting under the direction of a licensed professionalengineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor, to alter an item in any way. If an item bearing the stamp of alicensed professional is altered, the altering engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor shall stamp thedocument and include the notation "altered by" followed by their signature, the date of such alteration, and a specificdescription of the alteration.

This report was prepared by the following NYSDOT staff:

Vinicio Lora, Jr., P.E.,, Design Project Manager, NYSDOT, Region Ten Design

Description of Work Performed:

Directly supervised the preparation of the Final Design Report Chapters 1through 3 in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations andprocedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

DRAFT DESIGN REPORTFOR

PIN 0006.11.121OCEAN PARKWAY SHARED-USE PATH

WANTAGH STATE PARKWAY TOROBERT MOSES CAUSEWAY

NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES

SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)AND 49 U.S.C. 303

BYU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIONNEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Abstract: This report describes the social, economic and environmental effects of the Ocean ParkwayShared-use path project in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York. The project’s objective is to provide safe, non-motorized traffic access to recreational and employment facilities along Ocean Parkway.

Date __ Date ____Daniel D’Angelo, P.E. Jeffrey W. Kolb, P.E.Deputy Chief Engineer Division AdministratorOffice of Design Federal Highway AdministrationNew York State Department of Transportation

Additional information can be obtained from:

Mark Bocamazo, P.E. Jeffrey W. Kolb, P.E.Regional Design Engineer FHWA Division AdministratorATTENTION: Leo O’Brien Federal Bldg, Room 719Russell Murphy, P.E. Clinton Avenue & North Pearl St.Project Manager Albany, New York 12207New York State Department of Transportation Phone: (518) 431-4127Region 10Room 5A2250 Veterans Memorial HighwayHauppauge, NY 11788Phone: (631) 952-6924

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE Page

VOLUME I

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................................i,ii,iii,iv,vPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................................................1-2

CHAPTER I -INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. I-1

CHAPTER II - PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, EVOLUTION, CONDITIONSAND NEEDS, AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... II-1

A. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................................ II-1

1. Project Type ..................................................................................................................................................... II-1

2. Project Location/Description ............................................................................................................ II-1 Regional Map ........................................................................................................................................... II-2 Location Map ........................................................................................................................................... II-3

B. PROJECT EVOLUTION ................................................................................................................................ II-4

C. CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ......................................................................................................................... II-4

1. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations ............................................... II-4

a. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) .................................................. II-4b. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ..................................................................................... II-5c. Culture, Terrain and Climatic Conditions ..................................................................................... II-5d. Control of Access .......................................................................................................................... II-6e. Existing Highway Section ............................................................................................................. II-6f. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments ........................ II-9g. Speeds and Delay .......................................................................................................................... II-9h. Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................... II-10i. Level of Service ........................................................................................................................... II-13j. Non-Standard Features and Other Non-conforming Features ...................................................... II-15k. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ............................................................... II-15l. Pavement and Shoulder Conditions ............................................................................................. II-27m. Guide Railing, Median Barrier and Impact Attenuators ............................................................ II-27n. Traffic Control Devices (Signs, Signals, etc.) ............................................................................. II-27o. Structures ..................................................................................................................................... II-28p. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ............................................................................................ II-31q. Drainage Systems ........................................................................................................................ II-31r. Soil and Foundation Conditions .................................................................................................. II-33

s. Utilities ......................................................................................................................................... II-34t. Railroads ....................................................................................................................................... II-34u. Visual Environment and Surrounding Landscape ...................................................................... II-34

ii

v. Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists ................................................................................... II-36w. Planned Development for Area .................................................................................................. II-37x. System Elements and Conditions ............................................................................................... II-37

y. Environmental Integration ........................................................................................................... II-37z. Miscellaneous .............................................................................................................................. II-38

2. Needs ................................................................................................................................................. II-39

a. Project Level Needs ..................................................................................................................... II-391. Pavement Needs ................................................................................................................... II-392. Safety Needs ........................................................................................................................ II-393. Capacity Needs .................................................................................................................... II-394. Bridge Structural Needs ....................................................................................................... II-395. Drainage Needs .................................................................................................................... II-406. Environmental Needs ........................................................................................................... II-40

b. Area or Corridor Level Needs....................... ..................................................................II-401. Modal Interrelationship ........................................................................................... II-402. System Needs ....................................................................................................................... II-403. Mobility Needs ..................................................................................................................... II-404. Social Demands and Economic Development ..................................................................... II-41

c. Transportation Plans .................................................................................................................... II-41

D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................... II-41

CHAPTER III - ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................................... III-1

A. DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................... III-1

1. Standards ............................................................................................................................................ III-1

2. Critical Design Elements ................................................................................................................... III-1

3. Other Controlling Parameters ............................................................................................................ III-2

B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ......................................................................................................... III-2

C. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................ III-7

1. Description of Feasible Alternatives ................................................................................................. III-7

2. Engineering Consideration of Feasible Alternatives ......................................................................... III-9

a. Special Geometric Features .......................................................................................................... III-9b. Traffic Forecasts, Level of Service and Safety Considerations ................................................. III-11c. Pavement .................................................................................................................................... III-11d. Structures .................................................................................................................................... III-11e. Hydraulics .................................................................................................................................. III-12

iii

f. Drainage ...................................................................................................................................... III-12g. Maintenance Responsibility ....................................................................................................... III-12h. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) ........................................................................... III-12i. Soils and Foundations ................................................................................................................ III-12j. Utilities ........................................................................................................................................ III-12k. Railroads .................................................................................................................................... III-13l. Right-of-Way .............................................................................................................................. III-13m. Landscaping Development ........................................................................................................ III-13n. Provisions for Pedestrians, Including Persons with Disabilities ................................................ III-13o. Provisions for Bicycling ............................................................................................................. III-14p. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... III-16q. Park and Ride Lots ..................................................................................................................... III-16r. Bicycle Parking .......................................................................................................................... III-16

D. PROJECT COSTS AND SCHEDULE ................................................................................................. III-17

1. Costs ................................................................................................................................................ III-172. Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... III-17

CHAPTER IV - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................ IV-1

A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... IV-1

1. SEQR...................................................................................................................................................IV-1

2. NEPA....................................................................................................................................................IV-1

B. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................... IV-1

1. Social Consequences ......................................................................................................................... IV-1

a. Affected Population ..................................................................................................................... IV-1b. Local Planning Processes ............................................................................................................. IV-1c. Community Cohesion .................................................................................................................. IV-1d. Changes in Travel Patterns or Accessibility ............................................................................... IV-2e. Impacts on School Districts, Relocation Areas, Churches or Business ....................................... IV-2f. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access ......................................................... IV-2g. Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety, and Overall Public Safety and Health ................... IV-2h. General Social Groups Benefitted or Harmed ............................................................................. IV-3i. Regional and Local Use Plans ..................................................................................................... IV-3

2. Economic Consequences ................................................................................................................... IV-3

a. Impacts on Regional and Local Economies ................................................................................. IV-3b. Impacts on Existing Highway-Related Businesses ...................................................................... IV-4c. Impacts on Established Business Districts ................................................................................... IV-4d. Relocation Impacts ...................................................................................................................... IV-4

iv

3. Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................................... IV-4

a. Wetlands .................................................................................................................................... IV-4b. Surface Waters ........................................................................................................................... IV-7c. Water Source Quality ................................................................................................................. IV-9d. Coastal Zone Resources ............................................................................................................ IV-10e. General Ecology and Wildlife ................................................................................................... IV-10f. Endangered or Threatened Species ........................................................................................... IV-13g. Critical Environmental Areas ................................................................................................... IV-17h. Invasive Species ....................................................................................................................... IV-17i. Historical and Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. IV-18j. Visual Resources ....................................................................................................................... IV-19k. Parks and Recreation Facilities ................................................................................................. IV-24l. Farmland Assessment ................................................................................................................ IV-27m. Air, Noise and Energy ............................................................................................................. IV-27n. Contaminated Materials Assessment ........................................................................................ IV-29o. Construction Impacts ................................................................................................................ IV-29p. Anticipated Permits and Approvals .......................................................................................... IV-29

CHAPTER V - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................... V-1

VOLUME II

APPENDIX A –Conceptual Plans

1. Typical Sections

2. Conceptual Shared-Use Path Alignment

3. General Plans - Preferred Alternative

4. Profile at Crossing Locations

APPENDIX B - Cost Analysis

APPENDIX C

1. List of Project Advisors

2. Minutes of Meetings

3. Correspondence

APPENDIX D –Traffic

1. Vehicular Traffic Analysis

2. Projected Bicycle Traffic

v

APPENDIX E - Accident Data and Analysis

1. Accident Summary Report

2. Average Accident Rates by Facility –NYSDOT 2003 Traffic Volume Report

3. Seasonal Accident Summary Report

APPENDIX F –Utilities

APPENDIX G –Bridge and Culvert Inspection Data

APPENDIX H

1. References used for Chapter II

2. Early Coordination Requirements

3. Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation

3b. Coordination with Officials having jurisdiction over section 4(f) resources

4. Coastal Assessment Form and Policy Analysis

5. NEPA Checklist

6. Fish and Wildlife Correspondence

7. Invasive Species

APPENDIX I –Visual Impact Assessment Report

APPENDIX J –Determination of Effects Report

APPENDIX K –Glossary of Terminology for Bicycle Facilities

APPENDIX L –Public Involvement Plan

APPENDIX M –Pedestrian Generator Checklist

1

Preferred Alternative

During preliminary design process, careful consideration was given to several shared-usepath alternatives that would run from the southern terminus of the Ellen FarrantMemorial Shared-use path (that runs along the Wantagh State Parkway) located withinJones Beach State Park in Nassau County, to Captree State Park in Suffolk County.Alternative I-A was selected as the Preferred Alternative, having the shared-use path runadjacent to and entirely along the north side of Ocean Parkway.

The shared-use path would generally consist of a four-meter wide asphalt concrete paththat would accommodate non-motorized traffic in both directions and be separate fromthe travel lanes of Ocean Parkway. Primary users would include bicyclists, walkers,runners, and in-line skaters. The proposed shared-use path will also be ADA compatible.

Starting at the southerly terminus of the Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-use path on theeast side of Wantagh State Parkway the proposed shared-use path will proceed southacross the Zach’s Bay Parking Lot and would proceed along the north side of OceanParkway in the Parkway right of way. At the easterly end of the project, it would crossbeneath Robert Moses Causeway State Boat Channel Bridge and terminate at a bicycleparking facility to be built near the Captree State Park North Parking Lot. The CaptreeState Park North Parking Lot near the maintenance facility would be expanded toaccommodate additional parking demand. (Refer to Chapter III.C.1 for more details)

Public access to the shared-use path would occur at the southerly terminus of the EllenFarrant Memorial Shared-use path, Jones Beach State Park, Tobay Beach State Park,Gilgo Beach, Cedar Beach Marina, and Captree State Park.

For a typical section see Appendix A.1. General plans and profiles for the entire lengthof the project showing the layout of the Preferred Alternative, including all crossinglocations, can be found in Appendices A.3 and A.4, respectively.

The total estimated construction cost for this preferred alternative would beapproximately $12.6 million. The shared-use path would follow Ocean Parkway right ofway and Town-owned lands. There would be no cost for additional right of way.

There are eight Section 4(f) Resources that exist in or adjacent to the project area. Theyinclude Ocean Parkway, Jones Beach State Park, publicly owned John F. KennedyMemorial Wildlife Sanctuary, Tobay Beach Park, Gilgo State Park, Gilgo Beach, CedarBeach Marina, and Captree State Park.

Although there is no feasible and prudent alternative that totally avoids the use of landfrom Section 4(f) Resources, the Preferred Alternative includes all possible planning tominimize harm to these resources. Some of these measures include aligning the path onthe north side of Ocean Parkway to avoid disturbances to the sensitive dune habitat alongthe south side of the Parkway, placing the path at a setback from the Parkway allowing

2

for less of a visual intrusion from Parkway views and, wherever possible, aligning thepath below the existing grade of the Parkway to even further remove the path from view.In addition to these measures, the support facilities and ancillary devices for the path areto be designed with sensitivity to the historic character of Ocean Parkway. Signing,barriers, benches, and other facilities are to be designed in the same rustic style as theiroriginal counterparts. Sign colors are to be consistent with the recommendations for theParkway signing.

The Preferred Alternative was evaluated for impacts to Tidal Wetlands and AdjacentAreas to Tidal Wetland. After thorough examination of wetland mapping provided byNYSDOT and New York’s Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulation, it was determined that Tidal Wetlands, Adjacent Areas to Tidal Wetlands, and areas exempt from theseAdjacent Areas according to 6NYCRR Part 661.4(b)(1)(ii)&(iii), all occur in the projectarea.

The project lies on a barrier island, which is entirely within the floodplain, according tothe definition provided in the FHWA Executive Order 11988 Sec.6. (c). Therefore, nopracticable alternatives exist outside the floodplain. However, the Preferred Alternativeincludes all practicable measures to minimize the amount of impacts to the floodplain,including balancing the cut and fill quantities in accordance with Executive Order 11988.

Jones Beach State Park is on the National Register of Historic Places and Ocean Parkwayis eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. To comply with the 36 CFR Part800 for historic sites, a Determination of Effects Report was prepared and submitted tothe New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP)for review. In NYSOPRHP’s opinion, the project will have “No Adverse Effect” on Jones Beach State Park and Ocean Parkway provided that final design of site amenitiesand landscape plans are submitted to their office for approval (see correspondence inAppendix H.4). As part of the Preferred Alternative environmental commitments,NYSDOT will include several Environmental Initiatives as part of the Final Design ofthis project. These Environmental Initiatives will include a butterfly habitatenhancement, a native plant restoration program, provisions for fishing access under theRobert Moses Causeway Bridge, bird nesting, and interpretive signing.

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION

This proposed project would extend the existing Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-use path,which runs along the Wantagh State Parkway, from its southerly terminus at Jones BeachState Park in Nassau County to Captree State Park in Suffolk County. It would runadjacent to the Ocean Parkway for approximately 23.1 km (14.4 miles). The project’s objective is to provide a safe facility for non-motorized traffic to access recreational andemployment facilities along Ocean Parkway. The project will also serve to reducehighway congestion and improve air quality by converting some motorized traffic intonon-motorized. The total estimated cost for this project would be approximately $12.6million.

This project is considered a Class II Action under USDOT Regulations, 23 CFR 771.117(c). Although bikeways on existing highway right-of-ways are considered Type IIActions, this project is classified as a Non-Type II Action under the N.Y.S.Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) Part 15, Title 17 of the Official Compilationof Codes, Rules and Regulations of New York State (17NYCRR Part 15) because it doesnot satisfy criteria listed in Section 15.14, paragraph (d). More specifically, this projectwould require the physical alteration of more than 1.0 ha (2.5 acres) of parkland (Section15.14, (d) (5)) and it may have an effect on sites that are listed and eligible for theNational Historic Register (Section 15.14, (d) (6)). Therefore, this project shall beadvanced as a SEQR Non-Type II (EA). This project would help the department to meetits goals of enhancing air quality and extending bicycle and pedestrian access torecreational and employment facilities.

This document has been prepared to obtain Design Approval and a Categorical Exclusionwith documentation, based on 23 CFR 771.117(c) (3). The construction of bicycle andpedestrian lanes, paths and facilities meet the criteria for NEPA Class II.

Any questions for this project can be referred to Mr. Russell Murphy, P.E. (631) 952 -6924, the NYSDOT Region 10 contact person. His address is as follows:

NYSDOTNew York State Office Building250 Veterans Memorial Highway, Rm. 5A2Hauppauge, NY 11788

I-1

II-1

CHAPTER II - PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, EVOLUTION, CONDITIONSAND NEEDS, AND OBJECTIVES

A. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

1. Project Type - Shared-use path

This project involves the development of a shared-use path whose purpose is toprovide paved, non-motorized access to areas and facilities between, and inclusiveof, Jones Beach State Park and Captree State Park.

2. Project Location/Description

The project would be located on the south shore of Long Island along OceanParkway between Jones Beach State Park and Captree State Park (see Figures 1and 2 on the following pages for regional and location maps, respectively). Theproposed shared-use path would run adjacent to Ocean Parkway and throughJones Beach State Park, Tobay Beach Park, Gilgo State Park, Cedar Beach Park,Oak Beach, and Captree State Park for a total length of 23.1 km (14.4 miles).Ocean Parkway is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposedshared-use path will be referred to as the Ocean Parkway Shared-use path. TheState Highway number and official highway designation of the Ocean Parkway isS.H. 909D.

The Ocean Parkway Shared-use path would be situated within the boundaries ofthe Towns of Hempstead and Oyster Bay in Nassau County and the Towns ofBabylon and Islip in Suffolk County. The beginning reference marker is 909D-03011023 (near the northwest corner of Parking Field 6), and the ending referencemarker is 909D-07021093. (Note: The Ocean Parkway Shared-use path wouldbegin at the terminus of the Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-use path, which isadjacent to the northbound Wantagh State Parkway, and would extend to CaptreeState Park.)

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

495

ATLANTIC OCEAN

LONG ISLAND SOUND

PROJECT LOCATION

495

112

25

347

25A

27495

495

25

25

25A

110

111

454

NSP

SSP24

N A S S A U

S U F F O L K

PROJECT LOCATION

135

GRID

NORTH

000611

10

00

06

11

A_

CO

V.D

GN

FIG 1

FIGURE 1 REGIONAL MAP

JOB

MA

NA

GE

RD

ES

IGN

ED

BY

STATE

DRAWING NO.DATE

AS BUILT REVISIONS

SIGNATURE DATE

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

FED ROAD

REG. NO.

CONTRACT NO.

STATE OF NEW YORK

D

E

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

O

F

T

R

A

N

S

P

O

R

T

A

T

I

O

N

17

-JU

N-2

00

8 1

1:1

2

FIL

E N

AM

E =

DA

TE

/TIM

E =

US

ER

=

DE

SIG

N S

UP

ER

VIS

OR

rcasa

1 N.Y.

CH

EC

KE

D B

YE

ST

IMA

TE

D B

YD

RA

FT

ED

BY

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

REGION

P.I.N.

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

B.I.N.

COUNTY

DOCUMENT NAME


W

A

N

T

A

G

H

S

T

A

T

E

P

A

R

K

W

A

Y

T

O

R

O

B

E

R

T

M

O

S

E

S

C

A

U

S

E

W

A

Y

10/2007

PIN 0006.11.121

SHEET II-2

O

C

E

A

N

P

A

R

K

W

A

Y

S

H

A

R

E

D

-

U

S

E

P

A

T

H

O

C

E

A

N

P

A

R

K

W

A

Y

S

H

A

R

E

D

-

U

S

E

P

A

T

H

PROJECT LOCATION

PROJECT LOCATION

GRID

NORTH

000611

10

000611B

_C

OV

.DG

N

FIG 2

FIGURE 2 LOCATION MAP

JOB

MA

NA

GE

RD

ES

IGN

ED

BY

STATE

DRAWING NO.DATE

AS BUILT REVISIONS

SIGNATURE DATE

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

FED ROAD

REG. NO.

CONTRACT NO.

STATE OF NEW YORK

D

E

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

O

F

T

R

A

N

S

P

O

R

T

A

T

I

O

N

17

-JU

N-2

00

8 1

1:1

5

FIL

E N

AM

E =

DA

TE

/TIM

E =

US

ER

=

DE

SIG

N S

UP

ER

VIS

OR

rcasa

1 N.Y.

CH

EC

KE

D B

YE

ST

IMA

TE

D B

YD

RA

FT

ED

BY

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

REGION

P.I.N.

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

B.I.N.

COUNTY

DOCUMENT NAME


W

A

N

T

A

G

H

S

T

A

T

E

P

A

R

K

W

A

Y

T

O

R

O

B

E

R

T

M

O

S

E

S

C

A

U

S

E

W

A

Y

10/2007

PIN 0006.11.121

SHEET II-3

ATLANTIC OCEAN

PROJECT ENDS AT

CAPTREE STATE PARK

REF 909D 0702 1093

WA

NT

AG

H S

TA

TE

PA

RK

WA

Y

ZACH’S BAY

OCEAN PARKWAY

TOBAY BEACH

NA

SS

AU

CO

UN

TY

SU

FF

OL

K C

OU

NT

Y

GILGO

ISLAND

GILGO STATE PARK

CEDAR ISLAND

CEDAR BEACH

OCEAN PARKWAY

OAK BEACH

O

A

K

I

S

L

A

N

D

RO

BE

RT

MO

SE

S C

AU

SE

WA

Y

CAPTREE

STATE PARK

0 1.02

.

0

M

I

L

E

S

0 1.0

2

.

0

3.0 KM

O

C

E

A

N

P

A

R

K

W

A

Y

S

H

A

R

E

D

-

U

S

E

P

A

T

H

P

R

O

J

E

C

T

B

E

G

I

N

S

A

T

T

H

E

S

O

U

T

H

E

R

N

TERMINUS OF THE ELLEN FARRANT

MEMORIAL SHARED-USE PATH

REF 909D 0301 1023

O

C

E

A

N

P

A

R

K

W

A

Y

S

H

A

R

E

D

-

U

S

E

P

A

T

H

II-4

B. PROJECT EVOLUTION

The lack of access to the barrier beach by modes of transportation other thanmotor vehicles has long been recognized as a deficiency in a comprehensiveregional transportation plan. Continuous pedestrian and/or shared-use pathfacilities do not exist along the barrier beach, and pedestrians and bicyclists havefrequently been observed using travel lanes or paved shoulders.

The late Suffolk County Legislator, Maxine Postal, first identified the need fornon-motorized access along Ocean Parkway in July, 1994 (see Appendix C.3).The concept of this project was presented to the Long Island State ParkCommission and the New York State Department of Transportation. The benefitsidentified for the proposed project included the facilitation of access to theshoreline, greater opportunities for exercise and recreation, environmentalimprovements and increased tourism.

In 1995, letters of support for the shared-use path project were submitted to theLong Island State Park Commission and the New York State Department ofTransportation by Suffolk County Legislator, Steve Levy, and DeputyCommissioner of the Town of Islip Department of Planning, Eugene Murphy (seeAppendix C.3).

C. CONDITIONS AND NEEDS

1. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

a. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS)

Ocean Parkway is part of the Federal Aid Urban System and the NationalHighway System (NHS). It serves as a non-connecting link, principal arterial(expressway). The parkway provides high speed, limited access to four localcommunities (West Gilgo Beach, Gilgo Beach, Oak Island and Oak Beach),three state park facilities and four town park facilities.

Trucks and other commercial vehicles, with the exception of emergencyvehicles, maintenance vehicles and local deliveries, are prohibited on OceanParkway, therefore it is not part of the national network of designated truckaccess highways.

There are no local roads or shared-use path facilities, parallel to the OceanParkway, that provide supplementary travel routes between the above-mentioned communities and facilities. Bicyclists and pedestrians, althoughcurrently prohibited on the Ocean Parkway, have frequently been observedusing the parkway’s shoulderand travel lanes.

All stationing referred to hereafter is based on an arbitrary system beginningat the Jones Beach water tower near the west end of the project and ending atCaptree State Park. See general plans (GP1-GP29) in Appendix A.3.

II-5

b. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction

The Ocean Parkway right-of-way (ROW) is located within the boundaries ofNew York State parkland under the jurisdiction of the New York State Officeof Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). The westerlyportion of Ocean Parkway in Jones Beach State Park is maintained jointly byThe New York State Department of Transportation and Jones Beach StatePark. The portion of Ocean Parkway east from Jones Beach State Park to itsterminus in Captree State Park is maintained by The New York StateDepartment of Transportation. The proposed shared-use path would bemaintained by the New York State Department of Transportation under the bi-annual bikeway maintenance contract.

c. Culture, Terrain and Climatic Conditions

Ocean Parkway is situated on a barrier island between the Atlantic Ocean andthe South Oyster Bay. The terrain is uniform and classified as flat, and istherefore conducive to bicycling.

All land along the barrier island is owned either by the State of New York, orthe Towns of Babylon and Oyster Bay. The areas adjacent to Ocean Parkwayprimarily consist of recreational facilities, residential communities andundeveloped properties. The recreational areas are comprised of variousbeaches, their parking facilities, cafeterias, etc. The four residentialcommunities located along the barrier island are within the Town of Babylon.These communities are West Gilgo Beach, Gilgo Beach, Oak Island and OakBeach. Residents of these communities have long term leases with the Town.

Many areas along the south side of the parkway, as well as some sections onthe north side, suffer from dynamic coastal erosion forces. There aredeficiencies in the dune structures, which would protect the parkway fromstorm damage. Clearing and replenishment of the sand blown from the dunesis an ongoing maintenance problem along some sections of the parkway.

The shoreline terrain is very flat and open and thus is subject to strong winds.Prevailing winds generally stem from the northwest and west during moderateclimatic conditions. Warm and humid weather generally produces winds fromthe south and southwest. Stormy weather is usually accompanied byprevailing winds from the north and northeast. In addition to prevailing winds,the barrier island is exposed to daily offshore and onshore winds that developfrom the temperature variations between the land mass and ocean water.

The vegetation along the south side of the parkway and some of the openareas along the north side can be classified as “Maritime Dune” type vegetation. However, the area underlying the proposed shared-use pathlocation is classified as “Maritime Shrubland” type vegetation. The vegetation immediately adjacent to Ocean Parkway is mostly Myrica Pensylvanica(Bayberry) and Baccharis Halimifolia (Sea Myrtle). (Information regardingvegetation along the Ocean Parkway is based on Reschke, Carrol, March1990 Ecological Communities of New York State, NYS Natural HeritageProgram, Albany NY.) See Appendix H.1 for reference details.

II-6

Mosquitoes, no-see-ums, house flies and green flies are another concern topotential shared-use path users. The barrier island is comprised of many saltmarshes, which provide prime breeding areas for mosquitoes.

d. Control of Access

Ocean Parkway is a partially controlled access highway. Locations ofentrances and exits for parking lots and local roads are summarized in Table 2,page II-8.In addition to crossing entrances/exits, which could present conflicts withvehicular traffic, the Ocean Parkway Shared-use path would traversewalkways at recreational facilities. Efforts to mitigate conflicts withpedestrians at paths leading to pedestrian underpasses will be incorporatedinto the shared-use path design. The locations of pedestrian underpasses arelisted in Table 12, page II-31.

In general, commercial vehicles are prohibited from using Ocean Parkway.Only commercial vehicles with business in one of the residential communitiesor at one of the State or Town Parks, trailers with fishing boats to be launchedat Oak Beach or Captree State Park and trailer/campers heading to CedarBeach Campground are allowed to use the Parkway. (This regulation isenforced by the New York State Police).

e. Existing Highway Section

Ocean Parkway is a partially controlled access, divided, east-west roadwayalong the southernmost shore of Long Island, providing direct access to somepopular New York beaches. It is comprised of 25 km (15.5 miles) of roadway,10 km (6.2 miles) of which are in Nassau County to the west, and 15 km (9.3miles) of which are in Suffolk County to the east.

Ocean Parkway eastbound consists of three (3) travel lanes from WantaghParkway to 960 meters (3150 feet) east of reference marker 909D/0702/1019.This reference marker is located east of the entrance/exit to Gilgo Beach StatePark parking lot. There are two (2) travel lanes continuing east to RobertMoses Causeway.

Ocean Parkway westbound consists of three (3) travel lanes from WantaghParkway to 130 meters (425 feet) east of reference marker 909D/0301/1027.This reference marker is located east of the entrance/exit to Jones Beach StatePark parking lot 6. There are two (2) travel lanes continuing east to RobertMoses Causeway.

The eastern portion of Ocean Parkway, between the Robert Moses Causewayinterchange and the Captree State Park toll plaza, has two lanes of travel, onein each direction.

The sections of Ocean Parkway from Wantagh Parkway to 130 meters (425feet) east of reference marker 909D/0301/1027, located east of the

II-7

entrance/exit to Jones Beach State Park parking lot 6, and from Robert MosesCauseway to the Captree State Park toll plaza have posted speed limits of55km/h (35mph). The portion of Ocean Parkway between these sections has aposted speed limit of 90km/h (55mph).

Parking is prohibited along Ocean Parkway. Existing roadside elements alongOcean Parkway are limited to light standards, guide railing and roadwaysigning. The signing is comprised of regulatory signs (speed limit, emergencystopping only, etc.), reference markers, and entrance directional signs toadjacent facilities. The existing signs are in fair condition without anysignificant deficiencies. However, signs unrelated to the proposed shared-usepath were not evaluated. There are no overhead sign structures along thissection of the parkway. In the westerly section of the project, the roadway isthreatened by dune encroachment and coastal erosion on the south side of theParkway. Storm winds and strong offshore winds blow sand across theshoulder and onto the travel lanes, which requires routine removal.

See the following tables:

Table 1 - Existing Ocean Parkway Highway Features(Within Project Limits)

ROW Width Varies from 12 m (40 ft) to approximately 250 m (820 ft)

Travel Lanes Varies from two travel lanes in each direction to three travel lanes in each direction.Lane widths vary from 3.3 m (11 ft) to 4 m (13 ft) with a 0.3 m (1 ft) curb offset.Right Shoulder - 1.6 m (5 ft) paved in each direction east of Gilgo Beach.

Curbs Non-mountable, 150 mm (6 inches) high from Jones Beach to Gilgo Beach along theinside median. East of Gilgo Beach, non-mountable, 100 mm (4 inches) curb exists inthe median area at the turnarounds and at Robert Moses Causeway only.

Median Grass and light vegetation in median throughout, varies in width [7.3 m (24 ft) to 61m (200 ft)]

Clear Zone Varies between 4.5 m (15 ft) and 8 m (26 ft)

Grades VerticalCurves HorizontalCurves

Maximum grade - 1% Minimum SSD - 220 m (720 ft) Minimum LHC - 800 m (2625ft)

Intersections Robert Moses Causeway at the easterly end of the project plus a number of smallerintersections with parking facilities and local roads - see Table 2, Page II-8

Roadside Elements Parkway lighting, snow fencing, snow storage areas, guide rail, minimal signing, U-turns, and channelized right-turn lanes to parking lots

II-8

Table 2 - Intersecting Entrances to Parking Lots and Local Roads

Intersection Side of Dist.* Facility Public HomesParkway Km(Mi) Parking

Zachs Bay Parking north 0.02 Parking Lot (special 1034 N/ALot Exit to Wantagh (0.01) events only)Zachs Bay Parking north 0.20 Parking Lot (special 986 N/ALot Entrance/Exit (0.12) events only)

Jones Beach south 0.70 Service lot for 118 N/ABathhouse Parking (0.43) bathhouse

Jones BeachParking Field 6

south1.00 (0.62)

Beach Parking Lot 1,202 N/A

Maintenance north & 2.75 NYSOPRHP N/A N/ADriveway south (1.71) Maintenance facility

Tobay Beach Park north 6.80 Parking lot for beach 3,014 N/A(4.23) and access to Wildlife

PreserveWest Gilgo Beach north

8.50 (5.28)Residential community N/A 80

Gilgo Beach north 10.35 Parking Lot for Beach 550 57(6.43) and residential

communityCedar BeachMarina north 15.00 Parking Lot for 200 21

campand Campground (9.32) Marina, beach and sites

campgroundCedar Beach Park south 15.25

(9.48)Parking lot for beachand 9-hole golf course

438 N/A

Overlook Beach south 15.95 Parking lot for beach 317 N/APark (9.91) and 9-hole golf courseOak Island Parking north 19.20 Parking lot for 47 N/ALot (11.93) community accessible

by boat onlyOak Beach south 19.30

(12.00)Town road servicingresidentialcommunities

220 195approx.

Captree State Park north & 23.05 State Park 1448 N/AEntrance south (14.32)

*Note: Distance is calculated along the proposed shared-use path from the southern terminus of the Ellen FarrantMemorial Shared-use path

II-9

f. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments

The “build” alternatives for this project would involve the construction of approximately 23.1 km (14.4 miles) of a paved shared-use path, which wouldconnect the existing Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-use path in Jones BeachState Park to Captree State Park. The Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-use pathruns adjacent and parallel to the northbound Wantagh State Parkway forapproximately 7.2 km (4.5 miles) from Cedar Creek Park, south of MerrickRoad, to the Jones Beach State Park Amphitheater. The NYSDOT iscurrently developing plans (PIN 0517.23) to extend the Ellen FarrantMemorial Shared-use path north from Cedar Creek Park to the Long IslandExpressway South Service Road.

Another shared-use path project has been proposed as part of the Long IslandTransportation Improvement Program (LITIP) that would connect CedarCreek Park with the southerly terminus of the Bethpage State ParkwayShared-use path.

At the eastern terminus of the project, the proposed Ocean Parkway Shared-use path would connect to the future shared-use path facility on the RobertMoses Causeway (PIN 0017.55). The Robert Moses Causeway shared-usepath would cross the Great South Bay and the State Boat Channel beforeterminating at Captree State Park.

The NYSDOT is also considering the replacement of the Fire Island Bridgeand the incorporation of a proposed shared-use path facility on the newbridge. This would provide bicycle access to the Fire Island communities andRobert Moses State Park.

In addition, there are plans for future landscaping development of West GilgoBeach.

g. Speeds and Delay

The sections of Ocean Parkway from Wantagh Parkway to 130 meters (425feet) east of reference marker 909D/0301/1027, located east of theentrance/exit to Jones Beach State Park parking lot 6, and from Robert MosesCauseway to the Captree State Park toll plaza have posted speed limits of55km/h (35mph). The portion of Ocean Parkway between these sections has aposted speed limit of 90km/h (55mph). The 85th percentile speeds forexisting conditions along Eastbound Ocean Parkway were determined to be114 km/h (71 mph) between Cedar Beach and Gilgo Beach and 111 km/h (69mph) near the Jones Beach State Park Field 6 driveway entrance. ForWestbound Ocean Parkway the 85th Percentile speeds were determined to be108 km/h (67 mph) between Cedar Beach and Gilgo Beach and 101 km/h (63mph) near Jones Beach State Park Field 6 entrance driveway. Travel timedelay results for existing conditions are not included due to the nature of thisproject.

II-10

h. Traffic Volumes

1. Bicycle Traffic

Currently, there are no areas on or along the parkway designated for use bybicyclists or pedestrians, nor is there a continuous local road availableadjacent to the parkway to accommodate them. Bicyclists are prohibitedfrom using the parkway. Pedestrians, joggers and bicyclists, however, havebeen observed using the parkway pavement and grass shoulders, especiallyin the vicinity of the Gilgo Beach, West Gilgo Beach and Oak Beachcommunities.

The only existing source of bicycle activity in the area is in Jones BeachState Park, where during the summer season, bicyclists utilize the bicycleparking facility at the southerly terminus of the Ellen Farrant MemorialShared-use path. Off-season, bicyclists are permitted to continue to and ridethe Jones Beach boardwalk. To do so, they must proceed south from theEllen Farrant Memorial Shared-use path, through the Zach’s Bay and Parking Field 5 lots, and under Ocean Parkway via one of three Jones Beachpedestrian underpasses.

Evaluation of existing shared-use paths and bicycle/pedestrian generatorsalong the Ocean Parkway has provided insight as to the expected usage ofthe proposed shared-use path. The following conditions are anticipated andhave been considered in the establishment of design criteria for the OceanParkway Shared-use path:

i. Usage volumes for the shared-use path are expected to be approximately500 users per day on weekdays and 1,000 users per day on weekends. Thelargest concentration of users would occur at the westerly end of the projectin the vicinity of Jones Beach State Park and Tobay Beach Park. However,it is anticipated that once the Robert Moses Causeway Shared-use path isbuilt, the number of users towards the easterly end of the parkway in thevicinity of Captree State Park and Oak Beach will increase.

ii. Average peak hourly usage is expected to be approximately 100 users perhour, which would probably occur in the early afternoon on weekends andin the early evenings on weekdays.

For additional information on projected bicycle traffic see Appendix D.2.

2. Vehicular Traffic

Mainline traffic counts:

Traffic volumes were acquired for a three week period during the peaksummer season in July 2007. Automatic traffic recorders were placed atthree locations along the mainline of Ocean Parkway and traffic volume datacollected for the period between July 2, 2007 and July 24, 2007. Theautomatic traffic recorders were located on westbound and eastbound OceanParkway as follows: between Jones Beach Field #6 and the Nassau/SuffolkCounty Line, between the Nassau/Suffolk County Line and Robert Moses

II-11

Causeway, and between Robert Moses Causeway and the Captree tollbooth.

Existing traffic volumes are summarized in Table 3 below for each countlocation along the mainline of Ocean Parkway.

Table 3 - Existing Traffic Volumes along Ocean Parkway July 2007

Location Ocean Parkwaybetween Field #6

and theNassau/Suffolk

County Line

Ocean Parkwaybetween the

Nassau/Suffolk CountyLine and Robert Moses

Causeway

Ocean Parkwaybetween Robert

Moses Causewayand the Captree

Tollbooth

AADT 8504 7611 1675

DDHV 1087 725 180

AM Peak Hour 2284 1106 308

PM Peak Hour 2733 1439 443

Table 4 - Future Traffic Volumes along Ocean Parkway ETC + 20 = 2030

Location Ocean Parkwaybetween Field #6

and theNassau/Suffolk

County Line

Ocean Parkwaybetween the

Nassau/Suffolk CountyLine and Robert Moses

Causeway

Ocean Parkwaybetween Robert

Moses Causewayand the Captree

Tollbooth

AADT 10,691 9568 2106

DDHV 1367 911 226

AM Peak Hour 2871 1390 387

PM Peak Hour 3436 1809 557

Using appropriate growth factors, future traffic volumes have beencalculated and are summarized in Table 4 for each count location along themainline of Ocean Parkway. The growth factor of 1 percent per yearthrough to the design year of 2030 was obtained from the NYSDOTPlanning Department. The growth factor was applied to the 2007 data todevelop design year (2030) peak hour volume factors. The truckpercentages were almost zero and therefore not included in the analysis.

Driveway traffic counts:Traffic counts were conducted to determine volumes for a typical weekend.Specifically, the counts were conducted on the weekends of July 14 and 15

II-12

and July 21 and 22 of 2007 for the full twenty four hour period at eleven(11) locations within the study area. The locations are as follows: JonesBeach East Bathhouse Employee Parking Lot, Parking Field #6, TobayBeach Parking Lot, West Gilgo Beach Community Entrance, Gilgo BeachParking Lot, Cedar Beach Marina & Playground, Cedar Beach Parking Lot,Overlook Beach Parking Lot, Oak Island Parking Lot, Oak BeachCommunity Entrance, and Captree State Park. The existing weekend peakhour traffic volumes and the future weekend peak hour traffic volumes forthe eleven (11) driveway locations analyzed are shown in the Tables 5 and 6below:Table 5 - Existing Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes for

Ocean Parkway Parking Lots Summer 2007

Location Weekend Peak Period DrivewayWeekendPeak HourVolumes

1. Jones Beach East BathhouseEmployee parking lot

12 P.M. - 1 P.M.12 P.M. - 1 P.M.

ExitEntrance

113144

2. Parking Field #68:00 A.M.–9:00 A.M.5:00 P.M.–6:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

625554

3. Tobay Beach3:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M.12:00 P.M.–1:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

9141390

4. West Gilgo Beach10:00 A.M.–11:00 A.M.12:00 P.M.–1:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

4755

5. Gilgo Beach11:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.10:00 A.M.–11:00 A.M.

ExitEntrance

291278

6. Cedar Beach Marina8:00 P.M.–9:00 P.M.1:00 P.M.–2:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

7099

7. Cedar Beach6:00 P.M.–7:00 P.M.8:00 P.M.–9:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

5431330

8. Overlook Beach3:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M.12:00 P.M.–1:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

114111

9. Oak Island parking lot7:00 P.M.–8:00 P.M.12:00 P.M.–1:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

3428

10. Oak Beach community8:00 A.M.–9:00 A.M.10:00 A.M.–11:00 A.M.

ExitEntrance

608514

11. Captree State Park6:00 A.M.–7:00 A.M.5:00 P.M.–6:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

308317

II-13

Table 6 - Future Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes forOcean Parkway Parking Lots ETC + 20 = 2030

Location Weekend Peak Period DrivewayWeekendPeak HourVolumes

1. Jones Beach East BathhouseEmployee parking lot

12 P.M. - 1 P.M.12 P.M. - 1 P.M.

ExitEntrance

142181

2. Parking Field #68:00 A.M.–9:00 A.M.5:00 P.M.–6:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

786696

3. Tobay Beach3:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M.12:00 P.M.–1:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

11491747

4. West Gilgo Beach10:00 A.M.–11:00 A.M.12:00 P.M.–1:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

5969

5. Gilgo Beach11:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.10:00 A.M.–11:00 A.M.

ExitEntrance

366349

6. Cedar Beach Marina8:00 P.M.–9:00 P.M.1:00 P.M.–2:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

88124

7. Cedar Beach6:00 P.M.–7:00 P.M.8:00 P.M.–9:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

6831672

8. Overlook Beach3:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M.12:00 P.M.–1:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

143140

9. Oak Island parking lot7:00 P.M.–8:00 P.M.12:00 P.M.–1:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

4335

10. Oak Beach community8:00 A.M.–9:00 A.M.10:00 A.M.–11:00 A.M.

ExitEntrance

764646

11. Captree State Park6:00 A.M.–7:00 A.M.5:00 P.M.–6:00 P.M.

ExitEntrance

387399

Design Year = ETC +20 = 2030

No traffic data was acquired at the maintenance yard driveway at Oak Islandnor the service entrances to the beach, since the driveways were marked aseither closed or do not enter. Pedestrian counts were minor at the drivewayswith the majority of pedestrian activity occurring at the crossings under theOcean Parkway or near concession stands within the parking lots.

i. Level of Service

An analysis of the operating level-of-service using the methodology describedin Chapter 21 of the Highway Capacity Manual, was conducted for presentand future traffic conditions, both inclusive and exclusive of the proposedshared-use path alternatives. This analysis was taken at two locations alongOcean Parkway: The first location was between the Wantagh State Parkwayand the Suffolk County Line, while the second location was between theNassau County Line and the Robert Moses Causeway Interchange. The

II-14

proposed alternatives include Alternative I, a separate shared-use path with aminimum 1.5 m (5 ft) offset from the edge of pavement, Alternative II, a bikelane, and Alternative III, a signed shared roadway. Alternatives II and IIIwould effectuate a reduction in the lateral clearance for the parkway’srighttravel lane. All the proposed shared-use path alternatives would conflict withvehicles making right turns into and out of the parking lot and communitydriveway entrances. The proposed shared-use path Alternatives I, II and IIIare described fully in Chapter III - Section B of this report. The results of theexisting level-of-service are as follows:

Table 6a - Existing Roadway Level-of-Service along Ocean Parkwaybetween Wantagh State Parkway and Robert Moses Causeway*

Location Nassau County ExistingEB / WB

Suffolk County ExistingEB / WB

Density (pc/km/ln ) 16.4 / 10.8 8.1 / 7.0

Level of Service D / B B / A

Based on highest total peak hour traffic volumes.

The results of the future level-of-service analysis are as follows:

Growth rate = 1% per year* Based on highest total peak hour traffic volumes.

As can be seen in Table 6b, the three alternatives will result in no lower than alevel-of-service “D” for Ocean Parkway. This is the same level-of-servicewhich is being experienced today. Also, as evidenced by the results above,reducing the shoulder width would cause an increase in traffic density on theroadway.

A queue and delay analysis was performed at the entrances to each of thedriveways that are monitored by a tollbooth. The results of this analysis canbe seen in Appendix D.1.

Table 6b - Future Roadway Level-of-Service along Ocean Parkway between Wantagh State Parkway andRobert Moses Causeway - Design Year 2030 (ETC + 20 = 2030)*

Location NassauCounty

No-BuildAlt.

(EB / WB)

NassauCounty w/

Alt. I

(EB / WB)

NassauCounty w/

Alt. II

(EB / WB)

NassauCounty w/

Alt. III

(EB / WB)

SuffolkCounty

No-BuildAlt.

(EB / WB)

SuffolkCounty w/

Alt. I

(EB / WB)

SuffolkCounty w/

Alt. II

(EB / WB)

SuffolkCounty w/

Alt. III

(EB / WB)Densitypc/km/ln 20.6 / 13.6 20.6/ 13.6 21.0 / 13.8 21.1 / 13.9 10.2 / 8.8 10.2/ 8.8 10.3 / 8.9 10.4 / 9.0

Level ofService D / C D / C D / C D / C B / B B / B B / B B / B

II-15

j. Non-Standard Features and Other Non-conforming Features

There currently exist non-standard vertical clearances at existing pedestrianunderpasses, which are less than the required minimum of 2.4 m (8 ft) [3.0 m(10 ft) desirable] (see Table 12 on Page II-29). There are proposed radii forthe shared-use path of less than 29 m (95 ft) at parking lot entrances/exits.This is due to our proposed design speed of 8 km/h (5 mph) at theentrances/exits. These reduced radii are for safety reasons and may trigger theneed for curve warning signs to be installed. The reduced radii will allow forbetter sight distance and force the bicyclists to slow down at entrances/exits toparking areas.

k. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis

To facilitate the safety study, the Ocean Parkway corridor was divided intotwo sections, a westerly 6.3 km (3.9 mile) section in Nassau County, betweenthe Ocean Parkway/Wantagh State Parkway intersection (reference markernumber 909D-0301-1024) and the Nassau/Suffolk County Line, while asecond easterly 14.8 km (9.2 mile) section in Suffolk County began at theNassau/Suffolk County Line and ended at the Captree State Park toll plaza.The Nassau County section was further subdivided into an easterly andwesterly section according to the clustering of accidents. The 3 km (1.9 mile)section of Ocean Parkway west of the Ocean Parkway/Wantagh StateParkway intersection was not included in the study, as it was beyond the limitsof this project.

Accident data for Ocean Parkway was analyzed for a three year period, fromMarch 2004 to February 2007. During the three year study period, the NassauCounty section experienced 38 accidents. The Suffolk County section alsoexperienced 38 accidents over the same study period.

The accident analysis for the Nassau County section of Ocean Parkway is as follows:

Three subsections, each with seven or more accidents, were selected from the NassauCounty section of the parkway. Table 7, page II-17 gives the severity analysis summaryfor all of the accidents that occurred in this section. There were zero (0) fatal accidents,eight (8) injury accidents, twenty-five (25) property damage only accidents, and five (5)non-reportable accidents.

Table 8, page II-18 shows the average accident rate per million vehicle kilometers(MVKm) and per million vehicle miles (MVM) for each of the three selected locations.The accident rates for the three locations ranged from 0.21 to 1.54 accidents/MVKm(0.33 and 2.48 accidents/MVM). Based on recent NYSDOT State Accident SurveillanceSystem (SASS) data, shown in Appendix E.2, for the twenty-four (24) month periodending in May 2002, the statewide average accident rate for a six and five lane, divided,controlled access, rural roadway (such as this section of the Ocean Parkway) was 0.60and 0.48 accidents/MVKm (0.97 and 0.78 accidents/MVM) for main line accidents only,and 0.63 and 0.54 accidents/MVKm (1.02 and 0.87 accidents/MVM) for mainline and

II-16

juncture accidents, respectively. The accident rate summary in Table 8, page II-18,indicates that one of the three subsections exceed the statewide average accident rates.This section is the area near Parking Field 6. During the summer months, traffic is heavyand there are many movements coming in and out of the parking field. The averageaccident rate for the 6.3 km (3.9 miles) westerly study section of the Ocean Parkway is0.43 accidents/MVKm, which is approximately 25% less than the statewide averageaccident rate for comparable conditions.

Wet road and fixed object accident rates were computed and compared with the stateaverages. The wet road accident rate for the westerly subsection is 0.14accidents/MVKm (0.23 accidents/MVM). This is 133% higher than the statewide averageof 0.06 accidents/MVKm (0.09 accidents/MVM). Most of these accidents occurred whendrivers were speeding. In Nassau County, heading westbound, the speed limit decreasesas vehicles approach the traffic circle. Also, in this location, travel lanes decrease fromthree to two. Drivers disregard this speed reduction and are forced to make quickdecisions in a short amount of time.

There weren’t any wet road accidents for the middle subsection. The wet road accidentrate for the easterly subsection is 0.05 accidents/MVKm (0.08 accidents/MVM). This isless than the statewide average of 0.06 accidents/MVKm (0.09 accidents/MVM). Thefixed object accident rate for the westerly subsection is 0.42 accidents/MVKm (0.68accidents/MVM), which is approximately 250% above the statewide average of 0.12accidents/MVKm (0.20 accidents/MVM). These accidents were due to speeding. Therearen’t any substandard fixed object problem locations. The fixed object accident rate forthe middle subsection is 0.11 accidents/MVKm (0.17 accidents/MVM), which is less thanthe statewide average of 0.12 accidents/MVKm (0.20 accidents/MVM). There weren’t any fixed object accidents for the easterly subsection.

‘Other’ types of accidents accounted for 31.6% of the total accidents in Nassau County.The second most common type of accident involved fixed objects (26.3%), while thethird most common involved rear-end collisions and overtakes (5%). There weren’t anyaccidents involving pedestrians in the Nassau section. The summary of accidents for thestudy area by location, the “details of accident history” in the TE213 format are shown in Appendix E.1. The statewide average accident rates by facility type and NYSDOT trafficvolumes (AADT) are provided in Appendix E.2.

In order to compute the dry weather accident rates for all types of accidents, the numberof accidents that occurred during rain or snow was subtracted from the total number ofaccidents. The dry weather accident rates were computed with and without volumeadjustments. In order to adjust the volume, the number of days in which accidents hadoccurred during rain or snow was subtracted from the total number of days in the studyperiod.

A total of six (6) accidents in Nassau County reportedly occurred during rain or snow.These six (6) accidents were subtracted from the 38 total accidents to compute the dryweather accident rate. For the westerly section, the dry weather accident rate, withoutvolume adjustment was 1.40 accidents/MVKm (2.26 accidents/MVM), which isapproximately 192% above the statewide average accident rate for similar facilities. Theaccident rate with volume adjustment was 1.41 accidents/MVKm (2.26 accidents/MVM)which is approximately 192% above the statewide average accident rate for similarfacilities. Again, most of these accidents occurred when drivers were speeding. InNassau County, heading westbound, the speed limit decreases as vehicles approach the

II-17

traffic circle. Drivers disregard this speed reduction and are forced to make quickdecisions in a short amount of time.

For the easterly section, the dry weather accident rate, without volume adjustment was0.17 accidents/MVKm (0.27 accidents/MVM), which is approximately 65% less thanthe statewide average accident rate for similar facilities. The accident rate with volumeadjustment was .17 accidents/MVKm (0.27 accidents/MVM) which is approximately65% less than the statewide average accident rate for similar facilities. This analysis doesnot include a study of the significance of wet-road accidents.

Seasonal Accident Summary:

Because the Ocean Parkway is primarily used to access the area’s recreational facilities (beaches), it experiences high seasonal fluctuation in traffic volumes. The seasonalaccident analysis for the three-year study period indicated that there were 13 (34.2%)accidents in the spring, 11 (28.9%) accidents in the summer, 9 (23.7%) in the winter, and5 (13.2%) in the fall. Thirty-three percent (33%) of all traffic volume occurred in thesummer, 19% occurred in the winter, and 24% occurred in the spring and autumn.

Since most of the accidents occurred in the spring, a detailed analysis was performed forthis season. There were no accidents with fatalities, 1 accident with injuries, 10 accidentswith property damage only, and 2 non-reportable accidents. The primary accident typeinvolved a fixed object, which accounted for 38.5% of all accidents. Rear-end,sideswipe, and overtaking accidents comprised 15.4%, 15.4%, and 7.7% of all accidents,respectively. Accidents listed under ‘other’ comprised 23.1% of all accidents. Theanalysis of the accidents also shows that, out of the 13 accidents that occurred during thespring season, 7 (53.8% of the total spring accidents) took place in the vicinity of theJones Beach parking field number six. The seasonal accident summaries are included inAppendix E.3.

Fatal Accidents:

There were zero fatal accidents in the Nassau County section of Ocean Parkway duringthe three-year study period.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Accidents: The Nassau County section of Ocean Parkway didnot experience any pedestrian accidents. Also, no accidents involving bicycles werereported during the three-year study period in this section of the study corridor.

Table 7 - Accident Severity SummaryRoute 909D (Ocean Parkway)

Ocean Parkway Shared-use path (Nassau County)(March 2004 to February 2007)

Location (Reference Marker) Total Fatal InjuryPropertyDamage

OnlyNon-

Reportable909D 0301 1024 1 0 0 1 0909D 0301 1025 1 0 0 1 0909D 0301 1026 1 0 0 1 0909D 0301 1027 17 0 2 14 1909D 0301 1028 2 0 1 1 0

II-18

909D 0301 1029 1 0 0 0 1909D 0301 1031 1 0 0 0 1909D 0301 1036 1 0 1 0 0909D 0301 1037 1 0 0 1 0909D 0301 1038 1 0 1 0 0909D 0301 1042 2 0 1 1 0909D 0301 1044 1 0 0 0 1909D 0301 1045 1 0 0 1 0909D 0301 1051 1 0 0 1 0909D 0301 1057 1 0 0 1 0909D 0301 1058 1 0 1 0 0909D 0301 1061 4 0 1 2 1Total Study Area 38 0 8 25 5

Table 8 - Accident Rate SummaryRoute 909D (Ocean Parkway)

Ocean Parkway Shared-use path (Nassau County)(March 2004 to February 2007)

SegmentAccident Rate

StatewidePercent

Length Average* Difference

Study Area Section

TotalAccidents

March2004 to

Feb 2007**

AADTKm Mile /MVKm /MVM /MVKm /MVM %

Jones Beach State Park Field 6909D 0301 1024 to 1028

22 20211 0.644 0.4 1.54 2.48 0.48 0.78 218

Jones Beach State Park909D 0301 1028 to 1042 7 11726 2.225 1.4 0.25 0.39 0.60 0.97 -60

Jones Beach State Park909D 0301 1042 to 1063 9 11726 3.380 2.1 0.21 0.33 0.60 0.97 -66

Nassau County Total Study Area909D 0301 1024 to909D 0301 1063 38 12787 6.276 3.9 0.43 0.70 0.58 0.93 -25

Note: * For 6 and 5 lane divided, rural controlled access facilities (from NYSDOTaccident data, June 2000 to May 2002). See Appendix E.2.

** AADT volumes were obtained from the 2003 NYSDOT Traffic VolumeReport. See Appendix E.2.

The roadway section between reference markers 909D 0301 1024 and 909D0301 1027 is a 6-lane roadway, and the roadway section between referencemarker 909D 0301 1027 and the Nassau/Suffolk County Line is a 5-laneroadway with three eastbound and two westbound travel lanes.

II-19

STUDY CORRIDOR: ACCIDENT RATES FOR THE WESTERLY SECTION OFNASSAU COUNTY

(909D 0301 1024) to East of Field 6 (909D 0301 1028)

All accidents = 22 Accidents x 106

= 1.54 ACC/ MVKm (2.48 ACC/MVM)

3 yrs x 0.644 Km x 20,211 AADT x 365 days

Wet Road = (2 Accidents - 0 Non-Reportable Accidents) x 106

= 0.14 ACC/ MVKm (0.23ACC/MVM)

Accidents 3 yrs x 0.644 Km x 20,211 AADT x 365 days

Fixed Object = (6 Accidents - 0 Non-Reportable Accidents) x 106


Accidents 3yrs x 0.644 Km x 20,211 AADT x 365 days

Statewide Average Accident Rates ACC/ MVKm (ACC/MVM)

6 Lanes Divided - Control Access All Type Wet Road Fixed Object

Rural Mainline Accidents Only 0.48 (0.78) 0.06 (0.09) 0.12 (0.20)

Rural Mainline & Juncture Accidents 0.54 (0.87) 0.06 (0.09) 0.14 (0.23)

5 Lanes Divided - Control Access


The rate for all accidents, including wet road and fixed objects, in the westernNassau section was above the corresponding statewide averages. During the studyperiod there were six (6) accidents that occurred during rain or snow in the NassauCounty section. Out of the six accidents, (2) two occurred in the eastern subsectionand the other four (4) occurred in the western subsection of Nassau County.

Without volume adjustment:

Dry Weather = 20 Accidents x 106 = 1.40 ACC/ MVKm (2.26 ACC/MVM)


With volume adjustment:


Accidents (3yrs x 365days - 2days) x 0.644 Km x 20,211 AADT

II-20

STUDY CORRIDOR: ACCIDENT RATES FOR THE EASTERLY SECTION OFNASSAU COUNTY

From East of Field 6 (909D 0301 1028) to County Line (909D 0301 1063)

All accidents = 16 Accidents x 106


3 yrs x 5.6 Km x 11,726 AADT x 365 days

Wet Road = (4 Accidents - 2 Non-Reportable Accident) x 106



Fixed Object = (4 Accidents - 1 Non-Reportable Accidents) x 106



Statewide Average Accident Rates ACC/ MVKm (ACC/MVM)

6 Lanes Divided - Control Access All Type Wet Road Fixed Object


Rural Mainline & Juncture Accidents 0.54 (0.87) 0.06 (0.09) 0.14 (0.23)

5 Lanes Divided - Control Access


The rates for all accidents, wet road accidents, and fixed object accidentsin the easterly Nassau section were below the corresponding statewideaverage.





Dry Weather = 12 Accidents x 106 _ = 0.17 ACC/ MVKm (0.27 ACC/MVM)


II-21

The accident analysis for the easterly section of the Ocean Parkway (SuffolkCounty, beginning from the Nassau/Suffolk County line to the easterly terminus ofthe Ocean Parkway) is as follows:

Four subsections were selected from the Suffolk section, each of which had eight ormore accidents. Table 9, page II-23, gives the severity analysis summary of allaccidents occurring in this section of Ocean Parkway. There were zero fatal accidents,fifteen (15) injury accidents, fifteen (15) property damage only accidents, and eight(8) non-reportable accidents.

Table 10, page II-24, shows the average accident rate per million vehicle kilometers(MVKm) and per million vehicle miles (MVM) for each of the four selected subsections.The accident rates for the Suffolk section ranged from 0.12 to 0.73 accidents/MVKm(0.20 to 1.17 accidents/MVM). Based on recent NYSDOT State Accident SurveillanceSystem (SASS) data, shown in Appendix E.2, for the twenty-four (24) month periodending in May 2002, the statewide average accident rate for a four and five lane, divided,controlled access, rural roadway (such as this portion of the Ocean Parkway) was 0.62and 0.60 accidents/MVKm (0.99 and 0.97 accidents/MVM), respectively, for main lineaccidents. The accident rate summary in Table 10, page II-24, indicates that only one outof the four selected subsections exceeded the statewide average accident rates. This wasthe Gilgo Beach section of roadway. There were 9 accidents in 0.97 km (0.6 mile). Theaccident rate at this location exceeds the state average because it is such a small sectionof roadway with a large number of accidents. The accidents are mostly due to summertraffic coming in and out of the Gilgo Beach parking area. The average accident rate forthe entire Suffolk section was 0.20 accidents/MVKm (0.32 accidents/MVM),approximately 67% below the statewide average rate for comparable conditions.

Wet road and fixed object accident rates for the entire study corridor were computedand compared with the statewide average rates. The wet road accident rate of 0.05accidents/MVKm (0.08 accidents/MVM) is approximately 25% above the statewideaverage of 0.04 accidents/MVKm (0.06 accidents/MVM). Most of these accidentsoccurred when drivers were speeding. The study area’s fixed object accident rate of 0.06 accidents/MVKm (0.10 accidents/MVM) is approximately 63% below thestatewide average of 0.16 accidents/MVKm (0.25 accidents/MVM).

The majority of accidents involved fixed object collisions (34.2%), followed by overtakeaccidents (15.8%), and rear-end related accidents (10.5%). Other types of accidentsaccounted for 34.2% of the total. There was only one accident in which a pedestrian wasinvolved. The summary of accidents for the study area by location, the “details of accident history” in the TE213 format, are shown in Appendix E.1. The statewideaverage accident rates by facility type and NYSDOT traffic volumes (AADT) areprovided in Appendix E.2.

Twelve (10) accidents in Suffolk County reportedly occurred during rain or snow. Thesewere subtracted from the total 38 accidents to compute the dry weather accident rates.The dry weather accident rate without volume adjustment was 0.15 accidents/MVKm(0.24 accidents/MVM), approximately 75% below the corresponding statewide average.The accident rate with volume adjustment was 0.15 accidents/MVKm (0.24accidents/MVM), approximately 75% below the corresponding statewide average.Three (3) of the nine (10) accidents mentioned above occurred in the vicinity of GilgoBeach. As depicted in Table 10, page II-24, there were nine (9) accidents reported in

II-22

the Gilgo Beach subsection. The accident rate of 0.73 accidents/MVKm(1.17 accidents/MVM) for this subsection was 20.6% above the statewide average.Most of these accidents occurred when drivers were speeding. If the three (3) accidentsthat occurred during rain or snow were subtracted from the nine (9) total accidents, theaccident rate for this subsection would be substantially lower than the correspondingstatewide average. This was the only subsection in Suffolk County that wassignificantly impacted by accidents that occurred in rain or snow and it was due mostlyto a disregarding of the speed limit.

Seasonal Accident Summary:

The three-year seasonal accident analysis for the Suffolk section of the Ocean Parkwayindicated that 13 (34.2%) accidents occurred in the winter, 12 (31.6%) occurred in thesummer, 8 (21.1%) occurred in the spring, and 5 (13.2%) occurred in the fall season.Thirty-three percent (33%) of all traffic volume occurred in the summer, while 19%occurred in the winter and 24% in the spring and fall.

Since most of the accidents occurred in the winter, a detailed accident analysis wasperformed for this season. There were zero fatal accidents, 7 property damage onlyaccidents, 5 accidents with injuries, and 1 non-reportable accident. Of the reportedaccidents, ‘other’ types of collisions were most common, accounting for 53.8% of thetotal. There were 4 fixed object collisions, accounting for 30.8% of all accidents andthere were 2 overtake accidents, accounting for 15.4% of the accidents. The seasonalaccident summaries are included in Appendix E.3.

Fatal Accidents:

There were zero fatal accidents in the Suffolk section of Ocean Parkway during the three-year study period.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Accidents:

The Suffolk section of Ocean Parkway experienced one pedestrian accident, whichoccurred during the summer season at 9:46 P.M. on a Saturday night. The accident tookplace on an unlighted portion of the roadway in the vicinity of Gilgo Beach. Accordingto the police report, the accident involved an intoxicated pedestrian who was struck by avehicle. No accidents involving bicycles were reported during the three-year studyperiod in the Suffolk section of the study corridor.

II-23

Table 9 - Accident Severity SummaryRoute 909D (Ocean Parkway)

Ocean Parkway Shared-use path (Suffolk County)(March 2004 to February 2007)

Location (Reference Marker) Total Fatal InjuryPropertyDamage Only

Non-Reportable

909D 0702 1004 2 0 1 1 0909D 0702 1006 1 0 0 0 1909D 0702 1007 1 0 0 0 1909D 0702 1008 2 0 0 1 1909D 0702 1010 2 0 1 0 1909D 0702 1015 1 0 1 0 0909D 0702 1017 6 0 4 2 0909D 0702 1020 2 0 0 2 0909D 0702 1024 2 0 0 1 1909D 0702 1025 1 0 0 1 0909D 0702 1030 1 0 1 0 0909D 0702 1035 1 0 1 0 0909D 0702 1036 1 0 1 0 0909D 0702 1037 1 0 1 0 0909D 0702 1040 1 0 0 1 0909D 0702 1043 1 0 0 1 0909D 0702 1047 2 0 2 0 0909D 0702 1050 2 0 0 1 1909D 0702 1054 1 0 0 0 1909D 0702 1058 2 0 1 1 0909D 0702 1060 1 0 0 1 0909D 0702 1065 1 0 1 0 0909D 0702 1075 3 0 0 2 1Total Study Area* 38 0 15 15 8

* There were no reported accidents between mile markers 909D 0702 1076 and 909D 0702 1092 from March 2004 to February 2007.

II-24

Table 10 - Accident Rate SummaryRoute 909D (Ocean Parkway)

Ocean Parkway Shared-use path (Suffolk County)(March 2004 to February 2007)

SegmentAccident Rate

StatewidePercent

Length Average* Difference

Study Area Section

TotalAccidents

March2004 to

Feb 2007**

AADTKm Mile /MVKm /MVM /MVKm /MVM %

West Gilgo Beach909D 0702 1000 to 1014 8 11726 2.253 1.4 0.28 0.45 0.60 0.97 -53.6

Gilgo Beach909D 0702 1014 to 1020 9 11726 0.966 0.6 0.73 1.17 0.60 0.97 20.6Between Gilgo Beach and CedarBeach909D 0702 1020 to 1045 9 11726 4.023 2.5 0.17 0.28 0.60 0.97 -71.1

Cedar Beach to Captree St Park909D 0702 1045 to 1092 12 11726 7.564 4.7 0.12 0.20 0.62 0.99 -79.8Suffolk County Total Study Area909D 0702 1000 to909D 0702 1092 38 11726 14.81 9.2 0.20 0.32 0.61 0.98 -67.3

Note: * For 5 and 4 lane divided, rural controlled access facilities (from NYSDOTaccident data, June 2000 to May 2002). See Appendix E.2.

** AADT volumes were obtained from the 2003 NYSDOT Traffic VolumeReport. See Appendix E.2.

The roadway section between the Nassau/Suffolk County Line and reference marker909D 0702 1045 is a 5-lane roadway, with three eastbound and two westbound lanes.

The roadway section between reference marker 909D 0702 1045 and909D 0702 1092 is a 4-lane roadway.

II-25

ACCIDENT RATES FOR THE SUFFOLK COUNTY STUDY CORRIDOR

All accidents = 38 Accidents x 106 ___ = 0.20 ACC/ MVKm (0.32 ACC/MVM)

3 yrs x 14.8 Km 11,726 AADT x 365 days

Wet Road = (10 Accidents - 1 Non-Reportable Accidents) x 106 = 0.05 ACC/ MVKm (0.08 ACC/MVM)Accidents 3 yrs x 14.8 Km x 11,726 AADT x 365 days

Fixed Object = (13 Accidents - 1 Non-Reportable Accidents) x 106 = 0.06 ACC/ MVKm (0.10 ACC/MVM)


Statewide Statewide Average Accident Rates ACC/ MVKm (ACC/ MVM)

Rural Mai Rural Mainline Accidents Only All TypesWet Road Wet RoadFixed Obj Fixed Object

5 Lane Divided - Controlled Access 0.60 (0.97) 0.06 (0.09)0.22 (0.35 0.17 (0.28)

4 Lane Divided - Controlled Access 0.62 (0.99) 0.04 (0.07)0.16 (0.26 0.16 (0.25)

The rates for all accidents and fixed object accidents are below the statewide average for similar types offacilities. The rate for wet road accidents is slightly above the statewide average for similar types of facilities.

During the study period, 10 accidents occurred during rain or snow in the Suffolk County section.







Greatest concern for safety exists at the proposed shared-use pathcrossings at entrances and exits to parking lots and communities,and at pedestrian crossings. Three types of crossing conflicts areidentified as follows:

1. Type 1 - Motorists decelerate from high speed travel lanes on Ocean Parkway toparking lot entrances or roadway turnoffs. Sight distance is often inadequate andmotorists, typically, would not anticipate the bicyclists approaching the entrance fromeither direction, thus resulting in crossing conflicts between bicyclists and motorists (foraccident data and analysis, see Appendix E). To help alleviate these conflicts, signs and

II-26

pavement markings warning motorists of bicyclists will be placed in advance of theshared-use path crossings. In addition, brush will be trimmed back where sight distanceis inadequate.

2. Type 2 - Motorists accelerate from a parking lot exit or intersecting roadway into aparkway travel lane. The motorist’s attention is directed to vehicular traffic approachingfrom the driver’s left. Bicyclists approaching from either direction typically would not be anticipated by the motorist, especially from the right side (for accident data and analysis,see Appendix E). Again, to alleviate this conflict, warning signs and pavement markingswill be placed to make the drivers aware of the bicyclists.

3. Type 3 - Pedestrians walk from parking lots to underpasses or park facilities. Theyoften walk in groups and their attention would not typically be directed towardapproaching bicyclists. Bicyclists often assume the right-of-way at pedestrian crossings,resulting in bicyclist/pedestrian conflicts. This type of conflict is less severe thanbicycle/motor vehicle accidents and would present the least amount of risk.

Shared-use path crossing conflicts with Jones Beach visitors would occur during thevisitors’ walks from parked cars to beach facilities. These crossing conflicts would bealleviated by a striped area for the bicyclists to ride within. These pavement markingsand warning signs would allow for maximum visibility.

The entrance to Tobay Beach Park is the intersection of greatest concern for safety. Thistown facility provides parking for nearly 3000 vehicles. During peak usage in thesummer or during special events (Tobay Beach hosts a major boat show) vehicles enterand exit the parking lot continuously, allowing very few traffic gaps. The shared use pathwould cross at the ‘T’of the entrance and exit to the parking lot therefore creating only“one crossing” and less conflict.At this point, the vehicles are either slowing down or ata stop. Pavement markings and warning signs will be placed to alleviate this conflict.

There are no traffic control devices at the entrance to the Tobay Beach parking lot,however, a parking attendant is on site to slow traffic during the summer months, andtravel lanes leading to entrance booths located at the north side of the parking lot aredelineated by ropes and stanchions. During free flowing traffic conditions, vehiclescomplete the turn into the parking lot and continue toward the booths. Shared-use pathcrossing conflicts would occur at the entrance as described by Type 1 and Type 2 above.

Increasing the risk presented by the Tobay Beach crossing is the high rate of exposure.Tobay Beach is the largest parking lot outside of Jones Beach and would be one of thelargest generators of bicyclists. With its close proximity to Jones Beach State Park, highnumbers of bicyclists and other path users are anticipated. Avoidance of potentialconflicts at the Tobay Beach parking lot, along with several other parking lot entrances,was a major factor in establishing the proposed shared-use path alternatives.

No traffic control devices exist along the mainline of the parkway. The traffic controldevices used at parking lot intersections are generally comprised of entrance and exitgates.

Although bicyclists have on occasion used the parkway illegally, there were no reportedbicyclist/motorist accidents during the study period. However, if any had been reported,they would not be considered relevant to the design of the shared-use path, as bicycling isnot a sanctioned activity along Ocean Parkway (for accident data and analysis, see

II-27

Appendix E.2).

l. Pavement and Shoulder Conditions

A Pavement Condition Report is not required in accordance with Chapter 3 of theComprehensive Pavement Design Manual.

There is no existing, separate pavement for bicyclists. Local roads can accommodatebicyclists in the nearby communities. However, traversing the entire length of theproposed shared-use path via local roads is not possible. The primary local roadfacility is Oak Beach Road located in the community of Oak Beach. The condition ofthe roadway pavement on Oak Beach Road is adequate for bicycling and trail use.

NYSDOT Region 10, in consultation with the NYSOPRHP and FHWA, haveimplemented an agreement that recommended the right shoulder treatments alongOcean Parkway be 0.6 m (2 ft) of paved material except in those areas where highaccidents rates have been identified where paved shoulder should be 1.2 m (4 ft)wide. This agreement holds true for the Suffolk County portion of the OceanParkway. However, Ocean Parkway in Nassau County has a graded shoulder ofapproximately 2.4 m (8 ft), instead of a paved shoulder.

m. Guide Railing, Median Barrier and Impact Attenuators

Guide rail, parallel to the roadway, exists along several narrow sections of theparkway and at all underpass structures. A long section of guide railing exists alongthe median at Gilgo Beach. Another long section exists along the north side of theparkway in the vicinity of Oak Beach where the distance between the parkway andthe bay is less than the standard 7.2 m (23.6 ft). Typically, the guide-rail consists of aheavy post and blocked out, corrugated beam (rustic type). However, there areportions of guide rail toward the west end of the job that are cable type with heavywooden posts. Generally, the existing guide rail is in fair to good condition and not inneed of repairs.

Typically, along Ocean Parkway, there is a raised center median with a non-mountable curb. The median primarily consists of grass, with an abundance of treesand shrubs.

There are neither impact attenuators nor concrete median barriers within the projectlimits.

n. Traffic Control Devices (signs, signals, etc.)

Traffic control devices along the mainline of the parkway are limited to occasionalregulatory and advisory signs. Existing traffic control devices at the intersections withparking lots are generally located near entrance and exit gates and comprise eitheryield or stop signs. A list of traffic control devices is shown in Table 11, on thefollowing page.

II-28

Table 11 - Existing Traffic Control Devices

Location Reference Number Device Description

Jones Beach BathhouseParking

909D 0301 1025 No Traffic ControlDevices

Employee Parking Only

Jones Beach ParkingField 6

909D 0301 1026 Stop Sign Ticket Booth

Maintenance Driveway 909D 0301 1035 Do Not Enter Sign Authorized Vehicle Only

Tobay Beach Park 909D 0301 1060 Service Road Sign Concession Vehicles Only

Gilgo Beach East 909D 0702 1022 No Traffic ControlDevices

Beach Entrance

Cedar Beach Marina 909D 0702 1045 Gated Entrance Poor Condition

Cedar Beach Park 909D 0702 1046 Stop Sign Ticket Booth

Cedar Beach 909D 0702 1050 Stop Sign Ticket Booth

Overlook Beach Park 909D 0702 1058 4 Wheel Drive Vehicles with Town of Babylon Permit Only

Oak Beach 909D 0702 1077 Stop Sign Parking Lot Intersection

Maintenance Driveway 909D 0301 1035 Gated Entrance Authorized Vehicle Only

State Park, WildlifeRefuge

909D 0301 1044 Gated Entrance Dirt Path

Tobay Beach Park 909D 0301 1060 Stop Sign Ticket Booth

West Gilgo Beach 909D 0702 1004 Gated Entrance Ticket Booth

Gilgo Beach 909D 0702 1017 Stop Sign Ticket Booth

Cedar Beach Marinaand Campground

909D 0702 1045 Stop Sign Chain Link Fence Gate

Oak Island Parking Lot 909D 0702 1069 Stop Sign Offset Gate

o. Structures

The only major structure within the project limits is the Robert Moses Causeway,which is located near the eastern terminus of the proposed shared-use path. Besidesthis major structure, there are 10 pedestrian underpass culverts crossing below OceanParkway: two at Jones Beach State Park; two at John F. Kennedy Memorial WildlifeSanctuary; three at Tobay Beach Park; one at Gilgo Beach; one at West Gilgo Beach;and one at Cedar Beach Park. Tables 12 and 13, on the following pages, summarizethe existing structures crossing the parkway, with their respective BIN and culvertnumbers, and the relative condition of each.

II-29

Table 12 - Existing Structures

Dist.* Inside Culvert Out to Out

Structure Culvert Ref Km Year # of Dimensions** BarrelType Location or Bin # # (Mi) Built Spans Length Description***

Pedestrianunderpass

w/s Jones BeachBath House C060P10

909D03011023

0.70(0.44) 1929 1 6.1m x 2.3 m

(20' x 7'-10") 34 m (110' ) ReinforcedConcrete, Box

Pedestrianunderpass

e/s Jones BeachBath House C060P09

909D03011024

0.93(0.58) 1929 1 6.1m x 2.3 m

(20' x 7'-10") 34 m (110') ReinforcedConcrete, Box

Pedestrianunderpass

John F. KennedyMemorialWildlifeSanctuary vic.w/s GuggenheimPond

C060P08909D03011049

4.85(3.01) 1931 1 6.1m x 2.3 m


Pedestrianunderpass

Tobay BeachWildlifeSanctuary vic.e/s GuggenheimPond

C060P07909D03011055

5.96(3.70) 1931 1 6.1m x 2.3 m


Pedestrianunderpass

Tobay BeachPark - EastOcean Pavilion

C060P06909D03011060

6.80(4.23) 1931 1

4 m x 2.44 m(13' x 8') ** 61m (200')

CorrugatedSteel, Barrel

Arch

Pedestrianunderpass

Tobay BeachPark - WestOcean Pavilion

C060P05909D03011062

7.14(4.44) 1931 1 6.1m x 2.4 m

(20' x 8') 40 m (130') ReinforcedConcrete, Box

Pedestrianunderpass

Tobay BeachPark - West C060P04

909D03011063

7.48(4.65) 1931 1

6.1m x 2.4 m(20' x 8') ** 64 m (210')

CorrugatedSteel, Barrel

Arch

Pedestrianunderpass

West GilgoBeachCommunity

C060P03909D07021005

8.60(5.34)

1931/1965 1 6.1m x 2.4 m


Pedestrianunderpass

Gilgo BeachCommunity C060P02

909D07021010

10.34(6.42) 1931 1 6.1m x 2.4 m


Pedestrian

Cedar BeachPark under eastbound C060P01

909D0702 15.15 1935

1 6.1m x 2.1m(20' x 6'-9") 18 m (60')

underpass Cedar BeachPark under westbound

1046 (9.41)1 6.1m x 2.2 m

(20' x 7'-4") 17 m (55')

ReinforcedConcrete, Box

RobertMoses

Causeway

Vicinity CaptreeState Park 1058780 22.15

(13.8)

*Distances are measured along the proposed shared-use path** Inside culvert dimensions have been field verified.***For culvert deficiencies, see Table 13.Note: The horizontal dimension for arch culverts represents the maximum opening.

II-30

Table 13 - Culvert Structural and Pavement Deficiencies

Culvert DateInspected**

Structure Condition

Roadway Condition

Description of Deficiency

Structure: minor deficienciesC060P10 5/24/04

Roadway: minor deficiencies

- Impact damages on south railing*



- Rusted center median guide rail*

Structure: minor deficiencies

C060P08 3/14/07


- Exposed electrical conduit* - Severedebris encroachment, medium to densegrowth - Concrete structure in poorcondition - Areas of pavement settlement



- Minor debris encroachment, light growth- Concrete structure in poor condition -Major transverse cracking in pavement*



- Minor debris encroachment - Steelstructure in moderate condition - Minortransverse cracking in pavement*



- Concrete structure in moderate condition



- Minor debris encroachment - Steelstructure in moderate condition



- Minor debris encroachment, light growth- Concrete structure in moderate condition



- Concrete structure in moderate condition

Structure: minor deficiencies

C060P01 5/27/04


- Concrete structure in moderate condition- Pavement in fairly good condition, areasof settlement

*Repairs to culverts are beyond the scope of this project**Inspection data can be found in Appendix G.

II-31

p. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts

The hydraulics of bridges and culverts will not be impacted by this project.

q. Drainage Systems

The roadway is subject to flooding throughout the year due to the lack of sufficientdrainage facilities and excessive rainfall in the area. Because of the low elevation ofthe roadway, and its close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and Great South Bay, it isalso vulnerable to surges in the groundwater table caused by tidal action. There arealso several flooding and drainage deficiencies within the John F. Kennedy MemorialWildlife Sanctuary.

There is an existing storm sewer that is owned and maintained by NYSDOT. Itsdiameter is 305 mm to 762 mm (12 to 30 inch) and it is buried at 1.2 m (4.0 ft).

Table 14, on the following page, lists the existing drainage facilities along OceanParkway between the Jones Beach Water Tower and Captree State Park:

II-32

Table 14 - Existing Drainage Facilities along Ocean Parkway*

Pipe Size Station ** Location

305 mm (12") RCP 1+101 to 1+124 Median

305 mm (12") RCP 1+116 to 1+124 North Shoulder to Median

305 mm (12") RCP 1+124 to 1+136 Median

305 mm (12") RCP 1+136 to 1+150 Median

457 mm (18") RCP 1+56 to 1+177 North Shoulder



533 mm (21") VTP 1+300 to 1+395 Approx. 7.5m (25ft) from North Side Shoulder

533 mm (21") VTP 1+395 to 1+505 Approx. 7.5m (25ft) from North Side Shoulder

610 mm (24") RCP 1+505 to 1+532 (Culvert C060P10) North Shoulder


305 mm (12") CI 1+505 to 1+765 (Culvert C060P10) North Shoulder to Median

305 mm (12") CI 1+523 to 1+765 (Culvert C060P10) Median to North Shoulder

762 mm (30") RCP 1+576 to 1+604 North Shoulder to East Shoulder at East Bath House

762 mm (30") RCP 1+576 to 1+593 North Shoulder to North Side of Pedestrian Walkway

305 mm (12") RCP 1+584 to 1+588 South Side Under Bus Turnout

305 mm (12") RCP 1+686 to 1+719 South Side Bus Turnout to North Shoulder


305 mm (12") RCP 1+733 to 1+993 (Culvert C060P09) North Shoulder

305 mm (12") CI 1+733 to 1+993 (Culvert C060P09) North Shoulder to Median

305 mm (12") CI 1+753 to 1+993 (Culvert C060P09) Median to North Shoulder

305 mm (12") CI 5+905 (Culvert C060P08) Median to North Shoulder








305 mm (12") RCP 21+722 to 22+145 Median connecting 10 Catch Basins to North Shoulder

*Pipe sizes and locations to be verified in the field**See general plans (GP1 to GP29) in Appendix A.3 for station information

II-33

r. Soil and Foundation Conditions

Soil borings and subsurface investigations have not been performed. Ocean Parkwaywas constructed on embankment soils. The width of the parkway embankment variesfrom 5 m to 10 m (16.4 ft to 32.8 ft) beyond the edge of pavement. The embankmentshould be adequate for a shared-use path foundation.

According to the Soil Survey of Nassau County and the Soil Survey of SuffolkCounty, the native soils along the barrier beach are representative of the Duneland-Udipsamments complex.

The reports describe this complex as follows:

“This unit is very permeable; the water table is approximately at a depth of four feetbut is influenced by tidal action. There is a very low available water capacity andrunoff is slow. The complex consists of approximately 50% duneland which is lightgray sand at the surface to about 1.5 m (5 ft) or more deep. The other majorcomponent is Udipsamments which has a layer of grayish brown loamy sand about100 mm (4 inches) thick and below that to about 1.5 m (5 ft) is light gray sand.Exceptionally high tides brought on by storms may partially inundate this area madeup of mounds and knolls of sand. There is little in the way of plant cover other thanbeach grasses and scrub. Because the soil shifts under foot traffic, it is limited for useas a site for streets or paths.”

Given this information, the proposed shared-use path, side slopes and shoulderswould be designed with sufficient strength to bear on an existing sub-grade of thischaracter.

II-34

s. UtilitiesThe following publicly and privately owned utilities are located within theproject area:

Table 15 - Utilities

Utility Owner Depth of Facility Within Project

System Limits

Gas KEY SPAN (Brooklyn Union 50 mm ( 2 inch) dia. Buried @ 1.2m

Gas) (3.9 ft)Electric LIPA (Long Island Power Buried conduits @ 0.60 m (2.0 ft)

Authority)Telephone Verizon Buried conduits @ .45 m (1.5 ft)Water Freeport Water District 150 mm (6 inch) dia. Buried @ 1.2

m(3.9 ft)

Sanitary Sewer Suffolk County Dept. ofPublic Works

Buried @ 2.0 m (6.5 ft)

Nassau County Dept. of PublicWorks

Cable TV Cablevision Systems, Inc. Buried conduits @ 0.45 m (1.5 ft)

US CoastGuard

United States Coast Guard Carried by LIPA and Verizon

Communication (USCG) - AbandonedFacilities

* For additional details on the utilities within the limits of this proposed shared-use path project, seeAppendix F.

t. Railroads

There are no railroad facilities associated with this project.

u. Visual Environment

The barrier beach is very flat and open with upland vegetation cover (consisting ofshrubs, grasses and small evergreens) in most areas. In many areas, large clusters ofnon-indigenous Japanese black pines are dying as a result disease and pest infestationsuch as bluestain fungus carried by the turpentine beetle and the pinewood nematodethat feed on healthy trees from the inside out. Distant views to the north across uplandvegetation and marsh to the Great South Bay occur often, especially from the higherelevation of the parkway. To the south, distant views to the ocean are mostly blockedby dunes. (A Visual Impact Assessment Report is provided in Appendix I).

Visual concerns are mostly in the westerly section of the project, in the vicinity of

II-35

Jones Beach, Tobay Beach Park, and the communities of West Gilgo Beach andGilgo Beach. Along the easterly section of the project, Oak Beach and the highwaystructures associated with the Robert Moses Causeway interchange are the majorvisual concerns.

The existing visual environment consists of three different areas with separate anddistinct landscape characteristics. These areas are referred to as landscape units.

The first, and most prolific, landscape unit is the undeveloped barrier beach thatexists in its natural state. The barrier beach is very flat and open with a number ofdifferent visual elements that include dunes, marsh vegetation and the Great SouthBay. Vistas exist mostly along the parkway, which is slightly higher than the barrierbeach. They also exist along the beach, although the low elevations and numeroussand dunes restrict the views to the north.

Part of the barrier beach unit is the ocean beach and dune complex that exists alongthe south side of the parkway. This area is very rolling with a cover of low nativeshrubs and beach grass. The dunes often restrict distant views to the ocean from theparkway, especially when the distance between the parkway and beach is narrow anddunes have built up along the edge of the pavement. Where the distance is wide,secondary dunes are covered with larger shrubs and trees. Land form and vegetationin these areas, depending on the relative elevation of the observer, sometimes restrictviewing distance.

The parkway, its grassed slopes and related structures, such as signs and lightstandards, are prominent elements that cut through the undeveloped barrier beach.The strong lines of the highway and the smooth texture of the grass slopes areinconsistent with the natural surroundings. The visual exposure to these elements ishigh, especially in areas where no median exists between the roadways.

The undeveloped barrier beach on the north side of the parkway consists primarily ofupland vegetation cover made up of large shrubs, grasses and small evergreens.North of the upland area, adjacent to the Great South Bay, is high marsh and intertidalmarsh. These areas are very flat and covered with cordgrass. During a low tide, largeexpanses of intertidal marsh are viewable. In many locations, reeds (Phragmites)have encroached into the area between the upland vegetation and marsh. These areasoften block the view of the Great South Bay.

Where the distance between the parkway and the Great South Bay is wide, views tothe north across the upland vegetation and marsh to the Great South Bay occur often,especially from the higher elevation of the parkway. In some areas such as Hemlockcove and north of Oak Beach, the distance between the parkway and the Great SouthBay is very small, allowing unobstructed view of the bay.

One area of the undeveloped barrier beach that is slightly different in visual characteris the John F. Kennedy Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary. A narrow winding gravel roadtraverses this large area. Distance views from the road are mostly restricted by largetrees and shrubs on the south side and heavy strands of reed on the north side.Guggenheim Pond presents opportunities for views of water along a portion of thepreserve.

Typical views of the undeveloped barrier beach occur mostly between Gilgo Beachand Oak Beach, where diverse landscapes can be seen from the parkway.

II-36

The second type of landscape unit is the developed parkland. Almost all of this areais accessible to the public and viewing positions occur almost everywhere. Most ofthe viewing areas occur at lower elevations in parking lots, along walkways and nearpark facilities. The visual elements of these areas comprise large expanses of parkinglot pavement, walkways and park structures. During the summer months, the visualcharacter changes with the reflection of light from parking lots filled withautomobiles.

The parking areas are very level and distant views exist across the parking facilities tothe ocean and the Great South Bay. These views are usually unobstructed except foran occasional park building or structure. In most areas, the view from the highway isscreened by natural or introduced vegetation such as non-indigenous Black Pine.

Typical views of the developed parkland from the parkway and to the parkway occurat Jones Beach, Tobay Beach, Gilgo Beach, Cedar Beach Marina and at Captree StatePark.

The third type of landscape unit is the developed residential area. Such areas existadjacently to the parkway at three locations: West Gilgo Beach, Gilgo Beach and OakBeach. Viewer locations exist along the parkway and to the parkway from within theresidential areas.

The one and two story facades of the residential structures interrupt the distant viewsof the barrier beach from the parkway. In many areas, large clusters of non-indigenous black pines, that serve as a buffer between the parkway and residences,have died or are dying, allowing exposure to the visually intrusive structures. TheNYSDOT has contracted to remove these dead and dying trees and replace them withother types of evergreen and deciduous planting. The Department will continue to letsimilar contracts as these trees continue to die. However, for the immediate future,and as existing mature Black Pines continue to die, views will continue to open fromthe highway to the adjacent communities. Eventually, the new plantings will providea visual screen from the Parkway.

The proposed shared-use path would be seen primarily from Ocean Parkway. Threedistinguishable observer groups exist within the project area: local residents, visitorsto the recreational facilities, and motorists on the Ocean Parkway. These observergroups are differentiated by their visual response to the project and its setting.Viewer activity, awareness and values affect the visual response.

v. Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists

As discussed previously, there are no existing continuous provisions for bicyclists orpedestrians along the parkway, nor are there any continuous local roads adjacent to itthat would accommodate shared-use path and pedestrian traffic. Other provisions arespecified in Table 21, page III-15, which contains information on the locations ofexisting shared-use path support facilities, such as public bathrooms, phones, water,and concessions.

Generators of pedestrian activity include pedestrian underpasses, where people crossbeneath the parkway from parking lots and communities to the beaches. Anotherpedestrian generator exists at Hemlock Cove, approximately 13 km (8 miles) east ofthe Jones Beach Water Tower, where the sandy beach on the bay side of the parkwayserves as a haven for boaters. Many boaters leave their boats on the north side of the

II-37

parkway and cross the travel lanes to the Ocean Beach. Another area that generatespedestrian traffic is Oak Beach, where pedestrians cross from the parking lot near theOak Beach entrance to the bay side of the parkway for water access and fishing.

There are no known special user groups for the existing trails and facilities.

Other existing or planned shared-use path facilities are as follows:

1. The Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-use path begins in Cedar Creek Park inSeaford and terminates in the parking lot of the Jones Beach Theater nearZach’sBay.

2. The Bethpage Shared-use path begins at the Bethpage State Park parking lot inBethpage and terminates at Merrick Road in Seaford.

3. An extension to the Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-use path from Cedar CreekCounty Park to the Long Island Expressway South Service Road is planned.

4. An extension to the Bethpage Shared-use path is planned to reach the SyossetLong Island Railroad Station.

5. A shared-use path along Robert Moses Causeway is planned to begin at MontaukHighway (NY 27A) in West Islip and terminate at Captree State Park.

w. Planned Development for Area

There is no privately owned land along the barrier island and no development isplanned for the area that would affect the generation of shared-use path andpedestrian traffic.

x. System Elements and Conditions

There are no known system deficiencies in the area that would affect or be affectedby this project. Increases in traffic volumes, if any, resulting from this project areexpected to be small.

There are no known conditions in the area that are expected to adversely affectmobility. This project, however, would have a positive effect on area mobility.Accessibility of beach destinations to bicyclists and shared-use path users wouldincrease as a result of this project.

The Ocean Parkway Shared-use path would increase mobility in the region andproject area by providing an alternative means of travel to and along Ocean Parkway.It would link the southern terminus of the Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-use pathwith Captree State Park. Shuttle bus service would allow bicyclists to access FireIsland and the LIRR Babylon Station from Captree State Park once the future shared-use path facility (PIN 0017.55) is in place and Fire Island Bridge Replacement iscompleted. The Ocean Parkway Shared-use path would establish a much neededconnection between the proposed Robert Moses Shared-use path and the EllenFarrant Memorial Shared-use path. This would, in turn, increase mobility andaccessibility to and from the Ocean Parkway beaches and Fire Island beaches.

y. Environmental Integration

There are numerous existing natural and manmade features in the vicinity of theproposed shared-use path that may provide opportunities for environmental

II-38

enhancement above and beyond the required project mitigation measures. Suchfeatures include the bordering wetlands and areas of dense tree cover, which could becleaned up, and the sand dunes on the south side of the parkway, which could berepaired and protected. Possible environmental initiatives include:

• Butterfly Habitat Enhancement - A planting program that will introduceplant species that will enhance the fall migration of butterflies.

• Native Plant Restoration Program - A program to re-establish native dunevegetation.

• Shoreline Restoration - Reconstruction of portions of the shoreline with“soft” treatments similar to Hemlock Cove.

• Bird Nesting Structures - Construction of bird houses in the vicinity of theKennedy National Wildlife Preserve and Osprey nesting structures alongother portions of the shoreline.

• Interpretive Signing

z. Miscellaneous

There are no features or conditions, which have not already been discussed, that arerelevant to this project.

II-39

2. Needs

a. Project Level Needs

1. Pavement Needs

Existing shoulder conditions are inadequate for bicycle travel. See Table 13,page II-30 for pavement deficiencies at the various pedestrian culverts locatedwithin the project limits.

2. Safety Needs

Pedestrians have been observed crossing the Parkway between the ocean andGreat South Bay, which presents a safety concern. The Parkway crossingscurrently exist at Oak Beach, where pedestrians cross from the town parkinglot to the bay to fish, and at Hemlock Cove, where boaters land and cross toget to the ocean beach. It is anticipated that users of the shared-use path willwant to have access to the beaches on the ocean side of the Parkway. A totalof ten pedestrian underpasses are located at the various public parks and otherlocations that provide safe access to beaches. A list of pedestrian underpassescan be found in Table 12, page II-29.

Public phones are located at the numerous State and Town facilities alongOcean Parkway. At least one working telephone was found at every facilityduring a field investigation during the winter months. Available publicphones are listed in Table 21, page III-15.

There are proposed radii for the shared-use path of less than 29 m (95 ft) atparking lot entrances/exits. This is due to our proposed design speed of 8km/h (5 mph) at the entrances/exits. These reduced radii are for safetyreasons and may trigger the need for curve warning signs to be installed. Thereduced radii will allow for better sight distance by allowing the bicyclists tosee on-coming ramp traffic and force the bicyclists to slow down atentrances/exits to parking areas.

3. Capacity Needs

No motor vehicle capacity deficiencies were identified. Ocean Parkwayprovides adequate capacity for the present and projected traffic volumes.Capacity deficiencies for bicyclists are non-existent because bicyclists areprohibited from using the parkway and no parallel route exists.

4. Bridge Structural Needs

The only major structure is the Robert Moses Causeway Overpass at theeasterly end of the proposed project area. Apart from this major structure,along Ocean Parkway there are ten pedestrian underpass culverts, which arelisted in Table 12, page II-29. The proposed project does not address anybridge structural deficiencies.

II-40

5. Drainage Needs

The area to be developed is typically drained through surface runoff. Theproposed shared-use path would also use surface runoff as a means ofdrainage. Additional runoff from shared-use path construction will not impactthe existing drainage system.

6. Environmental Needs

Although the need does not exist to enhance the natural and manmadeenvironment beyond that which is addressed by the scope of the project,additional environmental initiatives and partnering opportunities withNYSDEC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Ducks Unlimited and otherenvironmental groups will be investigated in the Final Design Phase.

b. Area or Corridor Level Needs

1. Modal Interrelationship

The Ocean Parkway Shared-use path, combined with the Ellen Farrant MemorialShared-use path and local roads, would provide access to Jones Beach and otherdestinations on the barrier beach for users of the Long Island Railroad (LIRR).The LIRR currently has a policy of accommodating customers with bicyclesduring off-peak hours. Cedar Creek Park and the northerly terminus of the EllenFarrant Memorial Shared-use path are approximately one kilometer (0.63 miles),a four-minute bicycle ride, from the Wantagh Railroad Station via local roads.The total distance between the Wantagh Railroad Station and the Jones BeachBath House is approximately 10 kilometers (6.2 miles), less than a 30 minutebicycle ride.

Nassau and Suffolk County Transit Authorities do not accommodate bicycles,however, by switching modes, bicyclists and pedestrians would be able to accessthe transit route from Captree State Park.

2. System Needs

Currently, there are no pedestrian or bicycle connections between the EllenFarrant Memorial Shared-use path at Jones Beach State Park and the proposedRobert Moses Causeway Shared-use path (PIN 0017.55.101) at Captree StatePark. There is a need to fill this essential gap, as this highly visited area would bea major generator of pedestrians and bicyclists.

3. Mobility Needs

Currently, pedestrians and bicyclists have limited or no mobility along the OceanParkway corridor. This lack of mobility has created an unsafe condition alongOcean Parkway, where bicyclists have been seen utilizing the right travel lane ofthe parkway, and pedestrians have been seen utilizing the parkway clear-zones.

II-41

4. Social Demands and Economic Development

Currently, the motor vehicle is the only mode of transportation accommodated onthe barrier beach. Ocean Parkway and the adjacent facilities are heavily utilizedfor weekend and summer recreation primarily by residents of Long Island and theNew York Metropolitan area. The lack of a pedestrian/shared-use path in the areacreates a critical social and economic gap for non-motorized commuters wantingto travel the parkway corridor.

c. Transportation Plans

This proposed project is in conformance with the goals, objectives andrecommendations of the Pedestrian/Bicycle Element of the New York MetropolitanTransportation Council’s (NYMTC) Regional Transportation Plan Update - 1995 to2015. It would assist in achieving the “Long Island horizon year objective - a 500km(311 mile) designated shared-use path system with intra-regional connections, 100km (62 miles) of multiuse trails, fully connected sidewalk systems, and full access toparks and beaches” as stated in the Regional Overview Section of the NYMTC Plan.The shared-use path is part of the NYMTC plan for the “Future Designated Bikeway System” and is listed on the approved Long Island Transportation Improvement Program (LITIP).

D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objective of this project is to provide an environmentally sensitive shared-usepath for non-motorized transportation along Ocean Parkway. It would establishaccess to communities and recreational facilities along the barrier beach between itswestern and eastern termini. The shared-use path would start where the Ellen FarrantMemorial Shared-use path (Wantagh Parkway Shared-use path) ends in the vicinityof Jones Beach State Park and end in Captree State Park, approximately 750 m (2460ft) east of the Robert Moses Causeway.

III-1

CHAPTER III –ALTERNATIVES

A. DESIGN CRITERIA

1. Standards

The design criteria and guideline established for this project are based on the followingguidelines:

NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapters 17 and 18 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Shared-use path Facilities 1999 FHWA Implementing Shared-use path Improvements at the Local Level 1998

(PB99114316) Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 1991

2. Critical Design ElementsTABLE 16 - PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA SHARED USE PATH

Element Standard Proposed Source

Design Speed 30 km/h (20 mph) 40 km/h (25 mph) AASHTO

Design Speed (Grade 4%+): 50 km/h (30 mph) 50 km/h (30 mph) AASHTO

Design Speed (at parking lotentrances/exits): 8 km/h (5 mph) 8 km/h (5 mph)

N/A

Path Width: 4.0 m (13 ft) 4.0 m (13 ft) general use2.4 m (8 ft) minimum HDM

Shoulder Width: 0.6m (2 ft ) at 1:6 N/A AASHTO

Grade: 5 % 5% AASHTO

Horizontal Radius of Curvature76m (250 ft)76m (250 ft)27m (100 ft)

86m (260 ft ) for e = 2%104m (340 ft) for e = -2%10m (at parking lotentrances/exits)

AASHTO

Superelevation Rate: 2 % 2 % ADAAG

Stopping Sight Distance: 40m (132 ft)85m (280 ft) 85m (280 ft) AASHTO

Lateral Clearance to steep slope(>1:3): 1.5 m (5 ft) 1.5 m (5 ft) AASHTO

Lateral Clearance to trees, poles,walls and fences: 0.9 m (3 ft) desirable 0.6 m (2 ft) AASHTO

Lateral Clearance to barriers andrailings on structures: 0.6 m (2 ft) No less than clear width on

approach AASHTO

Lateral Clearance to edge ofroadway pavement (travel lanes orshoulder):

As much as possible to clearlydelineate a shared-use pathfacility independent from theroadway

1.5 m (5 ft) minimumAASHTO

Guide railing or barrier 0.9 m (3 ft) but no less thandeflection distance of guide rail 0.6 m (2 ft) AASHTO

Vertical Clearance: 3.0 m (10 ft)- for maintenancevehicles Above 4.3 m (14 ft) AASHTO

III-2

3. Other Controlling Parameters

Table 17 - Other Controlling ParametersDesign Criteria Ocean Parkway Ocean Parkway Shared-use

path

Design Vehicle Passenger Car Shared-use path

Level of Service C N/A

Another parameter influencing the design is the community’s request for maximum clearance between the proposed path and any adjacent properties.

B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

For the purpose of assessing alternatives, the project area was divided into three sections:

Section 1 - Jones Beach State Park from the southern terminus of the Ellen Ferrant MemorialShared-use path to Tobay Beach Park, Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County [approximately7.2 kilometers (4.5 miles) or 30 minutes by shared-use path based on an average speed of14.4 km/hr (9.0 mph)]. This section of the parkway is abutted on the north by a largeexpanse of land that incorporates Jones Beach State Park, the John F. Kennedy MemorialWildlife Sanctuary, and Tobay Beach Park.

Section 2 - Tobay Beach Park to Cedar Beach Park, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County[approximately 8.1 kilometers (5.1 miles) or 34 minutes by shared-use path based on anaverage speed of 14.4 km/hr (9.0 mph)]. This section of the parkway is constrained on thenorth side by tidal wetlands and incorporates the communities of West Gilgo Beach andGilgo Beach.

Section 3 - Cedar Beach Park to Captree State Park, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County[approximately 7.8 kilometers (4.9 miles) or 32 minutes by shared-use path based on anaverage speed of 14.4 km/hr (9.0 mph)]. This section of the parkway is very constrained onthe north by wetlands and open water, but is very wide in areas on the south side. Thissection incorporates the community of Oak Beach.

Section 1 ends and Section 2 begins at pedestrian underpass, Culvert # C060P05, located at theWest Ocean Pavilion in Tobay Beach Park. Section 2 ends and Section 3 begins at pedestrianunderpass, Culvert # C060P01, located at Cedar Beach Park. These sections are depictedgraphically in Appendix A.2.

The following alternatives were developed for consideration.

I-A: Parkway ROW along the north side

I-B: Parkway ROW along the south side

I-C: Parkway ROW along north side Section 1, south side Section 2 & 3

I-D: Parkway ROW along south side Section 1, north side Section 2 & 3

I-E: Parkway ROW along north side Section 1 & 2, south side Section 3

I-F: Parkway ROW along south side Section 1 & 2, north side Section 3

III-3

I-G: Parkway ROW along north side Section 1 & 3, south side Section 2

I-H: Parkway ROW along south side Section 1 & 3, north side Section 2

II. & III:Adjacent to the Eastbound and Westbound Parkway shoulders

IV: Parkway ROW along north side in Section 1 and independent ROWseparate from Parkway ROW in Sections 2 and 3

The following is a brief description of all alignment variations:

Alternative I-A: Shared-use path Completely Within Parkway ROW along the North Side

The shared-use path would access the north side of the Ocean Parkway ROW, at thenorthwest corner of the Zach’s Bay parking lot. The shared-use path would proceed east fromJones Beach State Park Parking Lot #5 along the Ocean Parkway ROW on the north side.The shared-use path would cross pedestrian underpasses, intersecting roadways andentrances and exits to parking lots at-grade. At the shared-use path path’s easterly end, itwould cross beneath the Robert Moses Causeway State Boat Channel Bridge and end at theshared-use path parking facility to be built as a part of the Captree State Park Parking LotExtension Project. Alternative I-A is a feasible alternative, and is described in greater detailin Chapter III.C.

Alternative I-B: Shared-use path Completely Within Parkway ROW along the South Side.

The shared-use path would start at the same location as that of Alternative I-A, but wouldproceed under the parkway at the pedestrian underpass, Culvert # C060P09, to the south sideof the Ocean Parkway ROW at the Jones Beach Bath House. The shared-use path would thenproceed east within the Ocean Parkway ROW along the south side, between the roadway andcoastline. The shared-use path would cross walkways to pedestrian underpasses, intersectingroadways and entrances to parking lots at-grade.

There are several reasons for not considering this alternative feasible. One reason is thepotentially larger environmental impacts it would have on the south shoreline dunes inSections 1 and 2. Coastal erosion on the south side of the parkway would necessitate theinstallation of a barrier, which would interfere with maintenance and clean up of sand blownonto the roadway.

Also, placing the shared-use path on the south side would result in a reduction of theparkway level of service in the vicinity of the Jones Beach Parking Field 6 entrance. Thelevel of service would decrease due to increased delays at the entrance that would arisefollowing the implementation of a stop sign at the crossing. The delays would result in anincrease in queue length, which currently extends the entire length of the deceleration lane.

Certain locations along the south side of Ocean Parkway, in Sections 1 and 2, are inhabitedby threatened and endangered species (see Chapter IV.B.3.c). Further east, in Captree StatePark in Section 3, also along the south side of the parkway, there exist known turtle nestingareas. Any construction along the south side of the Ocean Parkway would disrupt theenvironmentally sensitive habitats of these species.

Alternative I-C: Shared-use path Within Parkway ROW along the North Side in Section 1 and

III-4

the South Side in Sections 2 & 3.

The shared-use path would start at the same location as that of Alternative I-A. It wouldproceed east along the ROW north side until the pedestrian underpass, Culvert # C060P05,located at the West Bathhouse Pavilion in Tobay Beach Park. The shared-use path wouldcross the underpass to the Ocean Parkway ROW south side, and continue to Captree StatePark, as in Alternative I-B. This alternative was not considered feasible due to conflicts (inSections 2 and 3) similar to those in Alternative I-B.

Alternative I-D: Shared-use path Within Parkway ROW along the South Side in Section 1and the North Side in Sections 2 & 3.

The shared-use path would start at the same location as that of Alternative I-A. It wouldproceed under the parkway at the underpass, Culvert # C060P09, to the Jones Beach BathHouse, where it would proceed east on the Ocean Parkway ROW south side. It wouldcontinue on the ROW south side until the pedestrian underpass, Culvert # C060P05,located at the West Ocean Pavilion in Tobay Beach Park. At this point, the shared-usepath would proceed through the underpass, to the ROW north side, and continue alongthe parkway ROW north side to Captree State Park, as in Alternative I-A. This alternativewas not considered feasible due to conflicts (in Section 1) similar to those in AlternativeI-B.

Alternative I-E: Shared-use path Within Parkway ROW along the North Side in Sections 1& 2 and the South Side in Section 3.

The shared-use path would start at the same location as that of Alternative I-A. It wouldproceed east along the ROW north side until the pedestrian underpass, Culvert #C060P01 at Cedar Beach Park. At this point, the shared-use path would proceed throughthe pedestrian underpass to the Ocean Parkway ROW south side and continue to theCaptree State Park parking lot, as in Alternative I-B. This alternative was not consideredfeasible due to conflicts (in Section 3) similar to those in Alternative I-B.

Alternative I-F: Shared-use path Within Parkway ROW along the South Side in Sections 1& 2 and the North Side in Section 3.

The shared-use path would start at the same location as that of Alternative I-A. Itwould proceed under the parkway at the underpass, Culvert # C060P09, to the JonesBeach Bath House, where it would proceed east on the parkway ROW south side. Itwould continue on the ROW south side until the pedestrian underpass, Culvert #C060P01 located at Cedar Beach Park. At this point the shared-use path would crossto the ROW north side, and continue on the north side to the Captree State Parkparking lot, as in Alternative I-A. This alternative was not considered feasible due toconflicts (in Sections 1 and 2) similar to those in Alternative I-B.

Alternative I-G: Shared-use path Within Parkway ROW along the North Side of Sections 1& 3 and the South Side in Section 2.

The shared-use path would start at the same location as that of Alternative I-A. It

III-5

would proceed east along the parkway ROW north side until the pedestrianunderpass, Culvert # C060P05, located at the West Ocean Pavilion in Tobay BeachPark. At this point the shared-use path would proceed through this pedestrianunderpass to the south side ROW, and continue to the Cedar Beach Park pedestrianunderpass, Culvert # C060P01, where it would cross under the parkway to the ROWnorth side. After proceeding to the north side, the shared-use path would continue toCaptree State Park as in Alternative I-A. This alternative was not considered feasibledue to conflicts (in Section 2) similar to those in Alternative I-B.

Alternative I-H: Shared-use path Within Parkway ROW along the South Side in Sections 1& 3 and the North Side in Section 2.

The shared-use path would start at the same location as that of Alternative I-A. Itwould proceed under the parkway at the underpass, Culvert # C060P09, to the JonesBeach Bath House, and continue east on the parkway ROW south side. It wouldcontinue on the ROW south side until the pedestrian underpass, Culvert # C060P05,located at the West Ocean Pavilion in Tobay Beach Park, where it would cross theunderpass to the Ocean Parkway ROW north side. It would then proceed along thenorth side to the Cedar Beach Park pedestrian underpass, Culvert # C060P01, whereit would cross under the parkway to the south side, and continue to Captree State Parkas in Alternative I-B. This alternative was not considered feasible due to conflicts (inSections 1 and 3) similar to those in Alternative I-B.

Alternative II & III: Shared Roadway/Bike Lane with 1m offset (Alternative II) &without an offset (Alternative III).

Bicyclists would be allowed access to the shoulder of the parkway under theprovisions of 1229-a of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law. Shoulders onthe parkway would be expanded to a width of 2.5 m (8.2 ft) to allow one-way shared-use path traffic. Signing would be installed, directing bicyclists to use the shoulder ofthe parkway in the eastbound and westbound directions. Eastbound bicyclists wouldaccess the shoulder via the underpass to the Jones Beach Bath House near thesoutheast corner of Parking Field 5. They would remain on the shoulder untilreaching the Robert Moses Causeway, where they would detour onto a separateshared-use path and proceed beneath the causeway to Captree State Park. Westboundbicyclists would access the shoulder from a shared-use path beneath the RobertMoses Causeway State Boat Channel Bridge. Pedestrian underpasses would allowaccess to the shared-use path and would permit bicyclists and pedestrians to make U-turns between the eastbound and westbound shared-use paths.

Alternatives II and III were not considered feasible because they would not satisfy theobjectives of the project. Placing the shared-use path on road would not accommodateall potential users of the proposed facility. Pedestrians, in-line skaters and low skilllevel bicyclists may be intimidated by the presence of high speed parkway traffic.This would limit the use of the shared-use path to bicyclists with high skill levels,thereby not fulfilling the objective of creating a multi-purpose facility. Otherdisadvantages of these alternatives include vehicle/shared-use path conflicts in allsections and a potentially reduced level of service on Ocean Parkway.

III-6

In addition, NYSOPRHP expressed a concern with creating paved shoulder areas forthe shared-use path, as the widening of the roadway would change the historiccharacter of Ocean Parkway.

Alternative IV: Shared-use path on Independent ROW.

Section 1 - The shared-use path would start at the same location as that of AlternativeI-A. It would proceed east along the north side of Ocean Parkway, following theupland area between the Great South Bay and the parkway, where it would meet anexisting gravel roadway in the vicinity of the OPRHP maintenance yard. The shared-use path would follow the gravel road through the John F. Kennedy MemorialWildlife Sanctuary.

Sections 2 & 3 - The shared-use path would follow the same path as in Alternative I-A, except in West Gilgo Beach and Gilgo Beach, where it would follow local accessroads through the communities.

This alternative was not considered feasible because it would require excessive right-of-way acquisition from other public agencies, especially in the West Gilgo Beachand Gilgo Beach areas. It would also have the potential for critical environmentalimpacts in the vicinity of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary.

Alternative V - Null Alternative.

Alternative V proposes that no work be performed. Therefore, no provisions wouldbe made for bicyclists and they would not be given access to the parkway corridor.This alternative does not meet the objectives of the project and therefore was notconsidered feasible.

III-7

C. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative I-A is identified as the preferred alternative, deemed as the only feasiblesolution. This alternative has been modified following the evaluation of the shared-use path’s impacts, comments on the draft design approval document and commentsfrom the public information hearing.

1. Description of Feasible Alternatives

Alternative I-A - Shared-use path on Parkway ROW North Side

In Section I, starting at the southerly terminus of the Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-usepath on the east side of Wantagh State Parkway the Preferred Alternative would proceedsouth across the Zach’s Bay Parking Lot exit to the northbound lanes of the Wantagh State Parkway, along the northern perimeters of the Zach’s Bay Parking Lot. This alternative would continue south along the east edge of the Zach’s Bay Parking Lot toward the Jones Beach Amphitheatre main entrance and proceed along the east edge ofJones Beach Parking Field 5. Upon reaching the southeast corner of Parking Field 5, itwould proceed east with at grade crossings of the entrances to the Jones Beach East SideBathhouse at Pedestrian Underpass Culverts C060P10 and C060P09. The PreferredAlternative would continue east along the north side of Ocean Parkway. No culvertextensions would be constructed at crossings with Pedestrian Underpass CulvertsC060P08, C060P07 and C060P06. The Preferred Alternative will continue in theParkway right of way and will be located between the north side of Ocean Parkway andthe guide rail at the back of these culverts. A culvert extension would be constructed atPedestrian Underpass Culvert C060P05 and proceed with an at grade crossing of theTobay Beach Parking Lot entrance/exit. (Note: Tobay Beach design subject to changesubsequent to meetings with the Town of Oyster Bay)

In Section II, no culvert extension would be constructed at the crossing with PedestrianUnderpass Culvert C060P04. Again, the Preferred Alternative will continue in theParkway right of way and will be located between the north side of Ocean Parkway andthe guide rail at the back of the culvert. Further to the east in the vicinity of West GilgoBeach, a culvert extension would be constructed at Pedestrian Underpass CulvertC060P03. A culvert extension would be constructed at the crossing with PedestrianUnderpass Culvert C060P02 in the vicinity of Gilgo Beach Parking Lot. Landscapingwould be added along West Gilgo Beach to buffer the community from the parkway andshared-use path. There is a section of very narrow land resulting from coastal erosionthat would be encountered in the vicinities of Hemlock Cove and Oak Beach. Repairs ofthese sections of coastline would be initiated as part of this project to protect Oceanparkway and the shared-use path from further coastal erosion. The Preferred Alternativewould continue in Ocean Parkway’s right of way east to Cedar Beach where a culvert extension would be constructed at the Pedestrian Underpass Culvert C060P01 in thevicinity of the Cedar Beach Parking Lot.

III-8

In Section III, at the easterly end of the project, the Preferred Alternative would crossbeneath Robert Moses Causeway State Boat Channel Bridge and terminate at a shared-use path parking facility to be built near the Captree State Park North Parking Lot. TheCaptree State Park North Parking Lot near the maintenance facility would be extended toaccommodate additional parking demand.

Public access to the shared-use path would occur at the southerly terminus of the EllenFarrant Memorial Shared-use path, Jones Beach State Park, Tobay Beach State Park,Gilgo Beach, Cedar Beach Marina, and Captree State Park.

For a typical section see Appendix A.1. General plans and profiles for the entire lengthof the project showing the layout of the Preferred Alternative, including all crossinglocations, can be found in Appendices A.3 and A.4, respectively.

The total estimated construction cost for this preferred alternative would beapproximately $12.7 million. The shared-use path would follow Ocean Parkway right ofway and Town-owned lands. There would be no cost for additional right of way.

The Section I pedestrian and vehicular conflicts associated with locating the proposedpath along the north side are listed in Table 18 below:

Table 18 - Conflicts for Shared-use path Along North Side

Location of Conflict Type

Section 1Zach’s Bay Parking Lot Exit VehicleZach’s Bay Parking Lot Entrance/Exit VehicleJones Beach Bathhouse - West PedestrianJones Beach Bathhouse - East PedestrianOPRHP Maintenance Driveway VehicleEntrance Road to the John F. Kennedy MemorialWildlife Sanctuary Vehicle*

Section 2Tobay Beach Park Marina Entrance VehicleWest Gilgo Beach Residential Community VehicleGilgo Beach Entrance to Parking Lot Vehicle

Section 3Cedar Beach Marina and Campground Parking Lot VehicleOak Island Parking Lot Entrance Vehicle

Captree State Park Vehicle*Vehicular traffic is prohibited in the summer during park hours 8:00a.m. to 4:00p.m.

III-9

In Section 2, in the vicinity of West Gilgo Beach, two options were studied for getting theshared-use path past the pedestrian path leading to culvert C060P03, Option 1 wouldhave the proposed shared-use path circumnavigate around the north end of this pedestrianpath and Option 2 would extend the existing culvert, allowing the proposed shared-usepath to use the culvert extension as a means of traversing over the existing pedestrianpath. Residents of West Gilgo Beach have expressed their concern with Option 1, as itwould bring the proposed shared-use path closer to their community than Option 2.Therefore, Option 2 was considered the preferred option. In the vicinity of HemlockCove the route of the proposed shared-use path would encounter a very narrow section ofland between the Parkway and the shoreline. Despite having undergone emergencyrepair work to mitigate the effects of coastal erosion, this strip of coastline is currentlytoo narrow to accommodate the proposed 4 m (13 ft) shared-use path. This alternativecalls for the repair of this section of coastline to further mitigate the effects of erosion andto accommodate a proposed shared-use path, as well as a narrowing of the proposedshared-use path from 4m (13 ft) to 3 m (10 ft).

In Section 3, the route of the proposed shared-use path would again encounter a narrowstrip of coastline in the vicinity of the former Oak Beach Inn. Despite having undergoneemergency repair work to mitigate the effects of coastal erosion, sections of coastlinealong Oak Beach Inn are also too narrow to accommodate a 4 m (13 ft) shared-use path.This alternative calls for the repair of this section of coastline to further mitigate theeffects of erosion and to accommodate as well as a narrowing of the proposed shared-usepath from 4 m (13 ft) to 3 m (10 ft).

At the easterly end of the project, the shared-use path would cross beneath the RobertMoses Causeway State Boat Channel Bridge and end at the shared-use path parkingfacility to be built as a part of the Captree State Park Parking Lot Extension. For typicalsections see Appendix A.1. General plans and profiles at crossing locations forAlternative I-A can be found in Appendix A.3 and A.4, respectively.

2. Engineering Consideration of Feasible Alternatives

a. Special Geometric Features

Alternative I-A would satisfy the standards set forth in the 1991 AASHTO -Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Chapter 18 of the NYSDOTHighway Design Manual, and the Design Criteria established by this document.

1. Non-Standard Features

There currently exist non-standard vertical clearances at existingpedestrian underpasses, which are less than the required minimum of 2.4m (8 ft) [3.0 m (10 ft) desirable] (see Table 12 on Page II-31). However,other than the extension of culverts C060P05 at Tobay Beach, C060P03 atWest Gilgo Beach, C060P02 at Gilgo Beach and C060P01 at CedarBeach, the only culvert work expected for this project would be cleaning,clearing of overgrown vegetation and placement of the following signingat the entrances: “LOW CLEARANCES - BICYCLISTS MUST WALKBICYCLES THROUGH UNDERPASS.” The culverts would not be reconstructed to provide the desirable clearances. (Refer to Non-StandardFeatures Justification Table on the following page)

III-10

Table 19 –Non-Standard Features Justification Table

0006.11.121 Yes

909D Ocean Parkway Arterial

Shared-use path Principal Arterial0 Flat

13,445 NoNon-standard vertical clearances at pedestrian underpasses

10 existing culverts to remainOcean Parkway between Wantagh St Parkway and Captree St Park

N/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/A

Refer to Chapter II0.700.93

N/A

5, 000, 000

N/A

Removing and rebuilding ten culverts to standard vertical height clearance of 3.0 meters can notbe accomplished due to economic factors. Instead, place signs to inform bicyclists to walkbicycles through underpasses.

Compatible

Economic factors do not allow for the rebuilding of all culverts

Ten existing culverts are to remain. At these locations, signs will be placed to inform bicyclists to walkbicycles through underpasses

III-11

2. Non-Conforming FeaturesThere are proposed radii for the shared-use path of less than 29 m (95 ft) atparking lot entrances/exits. This is due to our proposed design speed of 8km/h (5 mph) at the entrances/exits. These reduced radii are for safetyreasons and may trigger the need for curve warning signs to be installed. Thereduced radii will allow for better sight distance by allowing the bicyclists tosee on-coming ramp traffic and force the bicyclists to slow down atentrances/exits to parking areas.

b. Traffic Forecasts, Level of Service, and Safety Considerations

1. Design Year Volume and Level of Service

The shared-use path facility as proposed for Alternative I-A would not impactthe traffic forecasts or the level of service of the parkway. There would be nochanges in lane width, geometry, or other prominent highway features.

Alternative I-A would accommodate projected levels of shared-use pathtraffic. Projected v/c ratios are approximately 0.4, assuming a peak hourdemand of 200 bphpl (shared-use paths per hour per lane) and a capacity of500 bphpl.

2. Safety and Traffic Control Conditions

Bicyclists and pedestrians are currently prohibited from using the mainlineand shoulders along Ocean Parkway. Based on experience with bicyclistbehavior and national data of shared-use path/motor vehicle accident types,the following safety concerns and countermeasures are proposed:

Crossing of Intersecting Roadways - This type of potential conflict is classified asType 1, as described in Chapter II.C.1.k. Type 1 conflicts could occur atparking lot entrances/exits and roadways intersecting the shared-use path.Such intersections, if necessary, would be graded and cleared to allowsufficient sight distance. The most desirable point for crossing parking lotentrances/exits would be near the entrance booth, where motor vehicles wouldbe decelerating for the stop ahead. Pavement markings and signing would beinstalled to emphasize the crossing and to warn both motorists and bicyclistsof the potential conflict. An alignment shift would be used on the shared-usepath to alert bicyclists to the upcoming crossing.

Illegal Crossing of Parkway - The alignment of the shared-use path along thenorth side of the parkway, immediately east of Jones Beach near the KennedyMemorial Wildlife Preserve, may encourage bicyclists to cross the parkway tothe beach on the south side. Two pedestrian underpasses along this sectionwould require sign installation to encourage bicyclists to cross the parkwayonly in these locations.

c. Pavement

The only existing pavement that would accommodate the shared-use path would be at

III-12

the parking lot crossings as well as Jones Beach Parking Field 5. Typically, any newpavement to be utilized by the shared-use path would comprise 100 mm (4 inches)top course over a 100 mm (4 inches) sub-base, and would comply with the standardsset forth in the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, Chapter 18.

d. Structures

Other than the extension of culverts C060P05 at Tobay Beach, C060P03 at WestGilgo Beach, C060P02 at Gilgo Beach and C060P01 at Cedar Beach, there would beno modifications to existing structures associated with this project.

e. Hydraulics

The existing hydraulics of culverts and bridges over waterways within the projectlimits would not be affected.

f. Drainage

The small increase in storm flow due to the increased shared-use path paved areawould infiltrate into the ground. In general, there will be no flow interceptionbetween the edge of pavement of the Ocean Parkway and the shoreline. Besides asmall area in the vicinity of Jones Beach, neither the parkway nor the shared-use pathwould have a curbed section. Without the existence of curbs, there would be nogutters and pavement drainage would continue to work as uninterrupted sheet-flow.

g. Maintenance Responsibility

Maintenance of the shared-use path would be the responsibility of the NYSDOT andwould be covered by the biannual Park and Ride and Bikeway Maintenance Contract.

Routine maintenance of the shared-use path would include, but not be limited to,sweeping, dune drift removal, mowing of clear areas, pruning of trees and shrubswithin the clear area, repair or replacement of signing, and litter collection. Long termmaintenance would include repair of pavement and clear area, and sealing orresurfacing.

h. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT)

Minor MPT would be required at the crossing of all entrances to parking lots,parkway intersections and pedestrian crossings for the shared-use path development.Also, when working within 4.5 m (15 ft) of the of a travel lane, in areas such as OakBeach and Hemlock Cove, it may be necessary to temporarily close that adjacenttravel lane. In order to minimize impacts, construction would not be permittedbetween Memorial Day and Labor Day in the vicinities of recreational facilities. Nonight time work is anticipated.

i. Soils and Foundations

The integration of special or costly soil or foundation treatment is not anticipated. Adetailed soil erosion control plan would be required as a part of the final design.

j. Utilities

The shared-use path project would typically require shallow excavation, less than 0.3m (1.0 ft) deep. In general, this would not interfere with most of the existing utilities.However, within the vicinity of Oak Beach there is a narrow section of land between

III-13

the Parkway and the coastline where the shared-use path would encounter anunavoidable conflict with the existing lighting system that will need to be replaced.

Other Utilities

LIPA underground conduits run from 1.00 km (0.63 miles) to 7.80 km (4.85 miles),while Cablevision cables run from 8.20 km (5.10 miles) to 9.30 km (5.78 miles) andfrom 18.80 km (11.68 miles) to 19.50 km (12.12 miles). Generally, the proposedshared-use path would not interfere with existing utilities.

Occasionally, all utilities cross from one side of Ocean Parkway to the other, usuallyfor customer connections (see Appendix F). Given that the depth of excavation forconstruction of the proposed shared-use path is approximately 0.3 m (1 ft) and theexisting utilities are located at depths greater than 0.45 m (1.5 ft), interferencesbetween the shared-use path and utilities are not anticipated.

k. Railroads

There are no railroad facilities in the vicinity of this project that would be affected bythe proposed development.

l. Right-of-Way

The proposed path lies within the State-owned right-of-way of Ocean Parkway. Noright-of-way takings are anticipated for this project.

m. Landscaping Development

Alternative I-A will require the removal of some existing vegetation adjacent to theparkway. This will be done to establish sufficient clearance between the shared-usepath and the parkway, and/or to aesthetically enhance the shared-use path userexperience. Additional landscaping work may be performed in certain areas toemphasize the separation of the shared-use path and to improve its physicalappearance. In areas where the shared-use path would be near communities, dead ordying vegetation will be removed, and new planting would be introduced to create avisual buffer between the path and the adjacent residences. Planting would includeindigenous plant species that are common in maritime uplands and dune planthabitats. The proposed planting would also protect path users from the wind.

n. Provisions for Pedestrians, Including Persons with Disabilities

The shared-use path, as proposed in Alternative I-A, would provide access topedestrians, including persons with disabilities, in-line skaters and other multiple-usetrail users. The minimum lane width of the two lane shared-use path would bemaintained at 1.2 m (4 ft), allowing the path to comply to ADA standards. Since thevertical alignment would not exceed a slope of 5%, level rest areas would not berequired. Support facilities and amenities are proposed at various locations along theshared-use path as shown in Table 20.The only type of usage that will not be fully accommodated is that of equestrian.Fast-moving bicyclists, skaters and joggers intimidate horses. In addition, horsesusually prefer a soft surface, not an asphalt pavement. For these reasons, equestriansare usually accommodated on separate treads. Insufficient space along the right-of-way for an additional tread and inadequate vertical clearances at pedestrianunderpasses would render the path inaccessible to equestrians.

III-14

o. Provisions for Bicycling

As previously mentioned, support facilities and amenities are proposed at variouslocations along the shared-use path. The purpose of the support facilities is to providea safe and pleasurable experience along the shared-use path for all users. The varioussupport facilities that will be considered are as follows:

Table 20 - Support Facilities for Shared-Use Path Users

Facility LocationShared-use pathParking Town and State Parks (Bicycle Lockers are proposed in the vicinity of the East Bath

House

at Jones Beach State Park)

Drinking Water Existing facilities at Town and State Parks (Existing facilities may be improved toallowthe filling of water bottles)

Public Restrooms Existing facilities at Town and State Parks

Telephones Existing phones at Town and State Parks. One new phone in the vicinity of OakBeach

Benches Existing Town and State Parks, and scenic areas

Refreshments and Existing facilities at Town and State Parks (picnic tables will be added if necessary)Picnic Tables

Distance Markers Every half mile (Bicycling time–3 minutes, Walking time–10 minutes)

Advisory and Distance to next facility or Beach Access (at each facility)Information Signing Private property/No entry signs (At entrances to communities and private facilities)

Path Courtesy (At Existing Town and State Parks)

Wind Direction and Speed (At Town and State Parks)

Interpretive Signing At strategic locations (In cooperation with Town, State or Public Interest Organization)and Kiosks

The support facilities would be located at the existing State and Town facilitiesthroughout the Parkway as shown in Table 21.

III-15

Table 21 - Distance and Location of Existing and Proposed Support Facilities for the Ocean Parkway Shared-use pathFacility Description of Facility Parkway

SideDistance from EFMB*km (miles) [time-min]

Distance to nextfacility km(miles) [time-min]

Shared-use pathParking

PublicRest-rooms

PublicPhones

PublicWater

BeachAccess

Refresh-ments

South terminus of theEFMB*

Shared-use path Parking Corral N 0 (0) [0] 0.5 (0.3) [2] ●

Zach’s Bay Bathhouse Shared-use path facility for Zach’s Bay N 0.5 (0.3) [2] 0.2 (0.1) [1]

● ● ● ● ●

Jones Beach Shared-usepath Promenade

Shared-use facility N 0.7 (0.4) [3] 0.3 (0.2) [1] ●

Jones Beach Bathhouse Ocean bathhouse facility S 1.0 (0.6) [4] 3.8 (2.4) [16] □ ● ● ● ● ●Pedestrian UnderpassC060P08

Unsupervised ocean beach access N/S 4.9 (3.1) [20] 1.1 (0.7) [5] ●

Pedestrian UnderpassC060P07

Unsupervised ocean beach access N/S 6.0 (3.8) [25] 0.6 (0.3) [2] ●

Tobay Beach Park West bathhouse - also serves asentrance to Kennedy WildlifeRefuge

N 6.4 (4.0) [26] 0.5 (0.3) [2] ● ● ● ●

Tobay Beach Park Bay bathhouse access N 6.8 (4.3) [28] 0.5 (0.4) [2] ● ● ● ● ●Tobay Beach Park East bathhouse - parking lot for

beachN 7.3 (4.6) [30] 2.9 (1.8) [12] ● ● ● ●

Gilgo Beach Bathhouse and private restaurantfor beach

N 10.4 (6.5) [43] 4.6 (2.8) [19] ● ● ● ● ●

Cedar Beach Marina andCampground

Two restroom facilities for marina,beach and campground

N 15.0 (9.3) [62] 0.2 (0.1) [1] ● ● ● ●

Cedar Beach Park Bathhouse for beach and 9-holepitch and putt golf course

S 15.3 (9.5) [63] 0.7 (0.5) [3] ● ● ● ●

Overlook Beach Park Parking lot for beach and pitch andputt golf course - residents only

S 16.0 (10.0) [66] 3.2 (2.0) [13] ● ● ● ●

Oak Island Parking Lot Parking lot for communityaccessible by boat only

N 19.2 (12.0) [79] 3.9 (2.4) [16]

Captree State ParkEntrance

State Park N/S 23.1 (14.4) [96] □ ● ● ● ● ●

Note: Time is based on conservative bicycling speed of 14.4 km (9 mph). * EFMB = Ellen Ferrant Memorial Shared-use path.KEY: ● Existing Facility

□Proposed Facility

III-16

p. Lighting

The Parkway lighting system is owned and maintained by NYSDOT. The conduitsare buried at 0.45 m (1.5 ft). The Parkway lighting, as it exists now, is sufficient forthe proposed shared-use path.

At some point in the future, after the proposed the Ocean Parkway Shared-use pathhas been built, lighting along Ocean Parkway will be replaced. The department hasproposed that lighting be placed in accordance with the Historic Parkway LightingGuidelines under a future lighting contract (PIN 0805.05 - “Miscellaneous Parkway Lighting - Meadowbrook State Parkway, Wantagh State Parkway, Ocean and LoopParkways, Nassau and Suffolk County, New York”).

The existing lighting will be removed and replaced with new lighting and anelectrical system. These guidelines call for lighting along the mainline of OceanParkway to be at least 6.46 meter-candles (0.6 foot-candles), with a uniformity ratioof 3:1. All acceleration and deceleration ramps would have lighting of at least 12.92meter-candles (1.2 foot-candles). In general the proposed light poles would besetback 4.6 m (15 ft) from the edge of pavement, with pole spacing greater than 90percent of what currently exists. However, within the confines of the historic JonesBeach State Park, the proposed light poles would be setback 3.0 m (10 ft) from theedge of pavement.

Although the proposed lighting work is to be started sometime in the future after thisproposed shared-use path has been built, coordination of this proposed lightingsystem will be taken into consideration in the design of the proposed shared-use path.

For information about existing parkway lighting systems see Appendix F.

q. Park and Ride Lots

Some parking lots in the project area are private lots belonging to communities andtherefore would not be established as park-and-ride lots. These parking lots exist atOverlook Beach, West Gilgo Beach, Oak Island and Oak Beach. The remainder ofthe parking lots within the proposed project limits would be established as park andride lots.

r. Shared-use path Parking

Shared-use path parking facilities would be installed in accordance with Table 21 onpage III-15.

III-17

D. PROJECT COSTS AND SCHEDULE

1. CostsROW Costs: $0.00

Alternative I-A: $12.6 MillionAlternative V: $0.00

For a detailed breakdown of project costs, see Appendix B.

2. Schedule

Design Approval: 11/13/2008

ADP: 06/16/2009

PS&E: 11/25/2009

Contract Letting: 02/25/2010

Completion of Construction: 03/29/2011

IV-1

CHAPTER IV - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTALCONSIDERATIONS

A. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter examines the potential social, economic and environmental impactsassociated with the proposed shared-use path development. This federally-funded projectis classified under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a Class IICategorical Exclusion with documentation, pursuant to the requirements of Part771.117(c), Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR Part 771.117(c)). It isclassified as a Non-Type II project under the New York State Environmental Quality Act(SEQR) Part 15 Title 17 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules & Regulations ofNew York State (17 NYCRR Part 15) dated January 6, 1998. A copy of the NEPAchecklist supporting the above determination is included in Appendix H.5.

The project does not encompass significant right-of-way acquisition that could result inserious social or economic impacts. Procurement of buildings is not necessitated by theproposed project, nor would substantial changes in traffic volumes ensue. An assessmentof the relevant social, economic and environmental issues is presented below

B. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Social Consequences

a. Affected PopulationThe shared-use path would provide transportation and recreational opportunities toresidents who live on the barrier beaches. It would also provide a connection betweencommunities along the Ocean Parkway.

b. Local Planning ProcessesThis project is on the Nassau/Suffolk County Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). All projects on the TIP seek to fulfill the goals of the New York MetropolitanTransportation Council (NYMTC), which is the planning organization for the New YorkMetropolitan area. Projects on the TIP are also consistent with the pedestrian and bicycleelement of the Regional Transportation Plan Update from 1995 - 2015.

In the 2003 Final statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan and final genericenvironmental impact statement for NY; the planning of the shared-use path system alongOcean Parkway was listed as an accomplishment related to the goal of advancing thedevelopment of a statewide system of interconnected trails and greenways and providingaccess to them. The 2003 plan called for those projects identified to, “Enhance trail connections and access to parks, historic sites, greenways, water routes, interpretivecenters and other natural and cultural resources (OPHRP 2003).

c. Community CohesionAlmost all of the property within the project study area is publicly owned. However,there are privately owned homes on public land within four (4) communities. Studiesshow that shared-use paths tend to have a neutral effect on the value of homes when

IV-2

placed immediately adjacent to them, while increasing their values when placed a shortdistance away from them (see Appendix H.2). The quality of life for residents in theimmediate area and shared-use path users is expected to improve due to an increase infitness opportunities and alternative modes of transportation.

This project is not expected to trigger population changes in the adjacent neighborhoods.There are no neighborhoods, ethnic groups, or low income communities that would beisolated as a result of this project. The development of the shared-use path wouldincrease community cohesion along the Ocean Parkway. Relocation of businesses wouldnot be required by this project.

d. Changes in Travel Patterns or AccessibilityThe proposed development would convert some automobile trips to bicycle trips byproviding bicycle access to the following town facilities, which are currently accessibleby automobile only: Tobay Beach Park in the town of Oyster Bay; Overlook Beach in theTown of Babylon; Cedar Beach Park in the Town of Babylon; and Cedar Beach Marinain the Town of Babylon. There would be no changes in automobile travel patterns orvehicle accessibility initiated by this project.

e. Impacts on School Districts, Relocation Areas, Churches or BusinessThere are no schools or major businesses located on the Barrier Island, therefore therewould be no impacts to school districts or businesses. The project does not involve anyrelocation.

f. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance AccessWhile the potential for accidents within parking lots may increase, the shared-use pathwould decrease the incidence of illegal pedestrian/bicycle encroachment onto the OceanParkway mainline, and reduce the frequency of bicycle and skating conflicts on the JonesBeach Boardwalk. As a result of the shared-use path project there may be an increaseddemand for park police and town security. However the degree of increase is notanticipated to be substantial at this time and may in fact be offset by a decrease in theillegal pedestrian/bicycle encroachment or bicycle/skating conflicts mentioned above.

The demand for ambulance and first-aid services may increase slightly due to minorinjuries occurring as a result of bicycle accidents.

g. Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety, and Overall Public Safety and HealthThe proposed shared-use path may increase the potential for accidents between bicyclistsand motorists, specifically at shared-use path intersections with parking lots and localroads. Conversely, the potential for the number of bicycle/vehicle conflicts on theParkway would decrease as a result of the bicyclists’ use of the shared-use path instead ofthe Parkway. The degree to which Highway Safety and Traffic Safety improves ordeteriorates cannot be quantified at this time. Although bicycle use may have a positiveeffect on the general health of the public through increased exercise, local residents haveexpressed safety concerns because of the proposed additional skating/biking trafficadjacent to their communities. There are no known statistics that support this safetyconcern. In fact, a 1998 report by the National Park Service reports that “in rural rail-trails crimes directly affecting adjacent property were rare . . . ” and, regarding urban rail

IV-3

trails, “very few incidents directly affecting urban property owners occurred.” Inaddition, in other communities in the Northeast where shared-use paths have beenconstructed, property values have stayed the same or risen as a result of the positiveinfluence and perception of the shared-use path. An example is the Bethpage StateParkway Shared-use path in Farmingdale.

Mosquito presence and climatic conditions, such as high winds and fog are not likely tosubstantially affect the shared-use path and its users. Current biker, pedestrians andothers using the nearby parks and the Ellen Farrant Shared-use path on the WantaghParkway are not known to be substantially affected by these conditions. Informativesigns regarding potential high winds, mosquitoes and dense fog may be incorporated intothe final design of the project.

h. General Social Groups Benefitted or HarmedThe majority of the project area is within census tract 1244.02 in Suffolk County andcensus tract 5219 in Nassau County. The 2000 Census report indicated that within thesetracts there is a total population of 8,019 persons, of which 97% identify themselves asWhite, and 3% indicated an income below poverty levels. The project is not within apotential environmental justice area as defined by Executive Order 12898.

Effects on elderly and disabled personsThe project would meet current ADA standards and would positively affect elderly anddisabled persons by creating additional and easily accessible opportunities fortransportation and exercise.

Effect on Low Income, Minority and Ethnic GroupsThe project may have a positive effect on low income, minority or ethnic groups byproviding a transportation alternative.

i. Regional and Local Use PlansThe proposed shared-use path would not alter the existing zoning and land useregulations. The NYSDOT will continue to coordinate with the New York MetropolitanTransportation Council to establish their intentions for future administration anddevelopment of the project area.

2. Economic Consequences

a. Impacts on Regional and Local EconomiesJones Beach is a major tourist destination for Long Island and the addition of the shared-use path facility would enhance its tourism attractiveness year round. As a result, thisproject has the potential to be one of the more frequently used shared-use paths in themetropolitan area. The economic impacts may include increased business for nearbymotels and restaurants, bicycle and skate rentals at beach areas and in communities nearthe shared-use path, on-site bicycle repair and an increase in concession business. Specialevents such as races, tours and charitable activities would be attracted to the shared-usepath. The economic benefits may be offset, to a small degree, by a reduction in parking

IV-4

revenues due to local mode shifts from autos to bicycles. The engineering andconstruction costs would have a very little effect on regional and local economies.

Developed land adjacent to the parkway and proposed shared-use path is owned bynearby communities. In most cases, houses in the communities are occupied either year-round or seasonally under long term leases. Although effects on land and/or home valuesin adjacent communities at West Gilgo Beach, Gilgo Beach and Oak Beach as a result ofthe project cannot be quantified at this time, studies of similar shared-use path projectsindicate that the land value of properties adjacent to shared-use paths either stays thesame or increases slightly. Property values of homes approximately one block away fromshared-use paths have increased at a slightly higher rate.

b. Impacts on Existing Highway-Related BusinessesThere are no existing highway-related businesses in the project area, therefore the projectwould have no adverse effects on highway-related businesses.

c. Impacts on Established Business DistrictsThere are no established business districts in the project area. Therefore, the projectwould not adversely impact any business districts.

d. Relocation ImpactsNo relocation impacts are anticipated for this project.

3. Environmental Consequences

a. WetlandsThe Ocean Parkway right-of-way is bordered on the north side by upland scrubvegetation and the tidal wetlands of Great South Bay/South Oyster Bay complex and onthe south side by a minimum 90 m (300 ft) upland buffer zone including primary andsecondary dunes north of the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean.

The various proposed alignments utilize either the north side, south side, or acombination of both sides of the Ocean Parkway. Any impact to tidal wetlandsnecessitates the acquisition of the proper permit from NYSDEC prior to the constructionof the shared-use path. The NYSDEC was contacted and a field visit was conducted todetermine wetland areas that would be impacted. NYSDOT, NYSDEC and the consultingengineers were present during the field visit. The NYSDEC identified areas of concernas those where the shared-use path would encroach upon or be located immediatelyadjacent to tidal wetlands.

The preferred alternative, Alternative I-A, which is aligned on the north side of OceanParkway, was specifically evaluated for impacts to tidal wetlands, and adjacent areas totidal wetland. After thorough examination of wetland mapping provided by NYSDOTand New York’s Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations, it was determined that tidalwetlands, adjacent areas to tidal wetlands and areas exempt from these adjacent areasaccording to 6NYCRR Part 661.4(b)(1)(ii)&(iii), all occur in the project area.

Initially a total of approximately 0.031 hectares (0.077 acres) of tidal wetlands wasproposed to be impacted by the preferred alternative, within the area of Oak Beach.

IV-5

Subsequent design changes and extensions of guiderail lengths have eliminated alldirect impacts to Tidal Wetlands. The amount of NYSDEC Tidal Wetland AdjacentArea (AA) which will involve permanent conversion to paved shared-use path is:

Amount of Proposed Shared-use path within TidalWetland Adjacent Area

Linear Meters 9510 m

Area of Proposed Pavement 3.80 hectares (9.39 acres)

It should be noted that much of the AA mentioned above is mowed turf grass (seeEcology section for discussion of vegetation impacts) and far from the tidal wetlandboundary. Figure IV-1 shows the typical relationship of the proposed shared use pathalignment with respect to the tidal wetlands AA. Approximately six miles of theproposed shared use path is outside of the regulated AA buffer zone.

IV-7

Two field visits with NYSDEC personnel were conducted; during which no majorimpacts or concerns were identifiedregarding the proposed project’s affect on tidal wetlands values. However, NYSDEC advised that the project should minimize loss ofnaturally-vegetated AA to the extent practicable. As part of the project’s environmental enhancements, the Department is working with OPRHP and the local agencies to identifyappropriate disturbed areas within the existing tidal wetlands AA that may benefit fromrevegetation with native species.

As there are no direct wetland impacts, there are no Federal Jurisdictional Wetlandsimpacts. The project activities do not involve excavation in or the discharge of dredgedor fill material into Waters of the U.S. No US Army Corps of Engineers permits areanticipated.

EO11990- Protection of WetlandsExecutive Order (EO) 11990 prohibits any federally-aided construction project fromoccurring in wetlands unless there are no practicable alternatives to construction in thewetlands and all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetland have beenincluded in the project. However, a Wetlands Finding is not needed if the only permitrequired is a DEC permit for work in the regulated adjacent area. For PIN 0006.11 theDEC permit required is for tidal wetland adjacent area only, therefore no WetlandsFindings document is required for this project.

b. Surface WatersSurface waters in the project area are limited to the waters of the Great South Bay andSouth Oyster Bay complex on the north coastline of Jones Island and the Atlantic Oceanon the south coastline (see Figure IV-2). These waters are categorized as Class SAsaline surface waters by NYSDEC. Class SA best usage is “shellfishing for marketpurposes, primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. These waters shall besuitable for fish propagation and survival.”The quality of these nearby waters is verygood. There are certain portions of the bay system however, that are occasionally closedto shellfishing due to periodic high bacteria levels. Stormwater impacts and loss ofwetlands are a threat to the long-term health of the bay ecosystem.

The proposed project is expected to have a minor affect on surface water quality. Thisproject proposes to install a paved shared-use path close to the existing parkwaypavement. No motorized vehicles are allowed on the shared-use path. Also, the projectwill not collect and discharge stormwater runoff to any water body. A minimal amountof stormwater will be generated by the project and the sheet flow will easily infiltrate andrecharge through the sandy soils adjacent to the proposed .shared-use path.

IV-9

Floodplains

The project lies on a barrier island, which is entirely within the 100-year floodplain,according to the definition provided in FHWA Executive Order 11988 Sec. 6.(c).Therefore, no practicable alternatives exist outside of the floodplain. The proposed actionincludes all practicable measures to minimize the amount of impacts to the floodplain.All alternatives have been studied conceptually to ensure that standing water and/orrecurrent flooding conditions are not introduced as a result of the bicycle pathconstruction. The amount of fill necessary is approximately equal to the amount of cutrequired. The project is therefore in compliance with Executive Order 11988 that requiresavoidance to the extent possible of the long and short term impacts associated withoccupancy and modification of floodplains.

This project would not significantly change the amount of storm water runoff, nor wouldit have prominent effects on the groundwater table. Since motorized traffic would beprohibited from the shared-use path, particulate matter from exhaust, tires or motor oilwould not increase. The minor increase in storm runoff generated by the proposedshared-use path would infiltrate the permeable soils of the barrier island.

Storm Water Management (State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(SPDES)

While the project will disturb more than one acre of currently pervious land, because ofthe linear nature of the project, a closed stormwater system will not be constructed. Allstormwater runoff will be with sheet flow to surrounding vegetated areas. Sheet runoffis not expected to reach any waters of the United States. At Hemlock Cove and OakBeach, approximately 600 meters of linear shared-use path are within 5 meters of thewetland complex. Runoff will be sheet flow at this point and will not trigger a SPDESgeneral permit. In order to protect surface water resources at these locations the shared-use path will be slightly superelevated toward the parkway and appropriate infiltrationmeasures will be used in the median area to prevent ponding. While this project is notrequired to assess the requirements for permanent stormwater management practices, anerosion and sediment control plan will be prepared prior to construction. These planswill include phasing of excavation/fill/paving operations and measures such as silt fenceand temporary seeding/mulching to prevent erosion of exposed soils.

c. Water Source QualitySection 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 provides for the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate and protect Sole Source Aquifers.A Section 1424(e) review is required for federally funded projects in Sole Source AquiferAreas. NYSDOT must ensure that all federally-aided projects are designed to preventsignificant contamination of Sole Source Aquifers to a level that may create a significanthazard to public health. The 1984 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) betweenFHWA and the EPA establishes the types of projects that require federal review, factorsto be considered in the review process, and time frames for review as per ExecutiveOrder (EO) 12372. Construction of a shared-use path is not included on the list of projecttypes that necessitate a Section 1424(e) review. Furthermore, the project is located on abarrier island and is designated as a groundwater discharge zone (Zone VII as per the 208NURP Study, L.I. Regional Planning Board, 1982). This designation indicates there isminimal potential for the project to affect the sole-source aquifer. As such, no furtherfederal review is required for this project.

IV-10

d. Coastal Zone ResourcesNYS Department of State (NYSDOS) protects designated Coastal Areas, including NewYork State's tidal coastal waters and the adjacent shorelands as well as the Great Lakes,major rivers and designated inland waterways with Local Waterfront RevitalizationPrograms, and other areas defined in 19 NYCRR Parts 600-601 and in Executive Law,Article 42.According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,the project is within a designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Thehabitat is part of New York State’s Coastal Management Program (CMP), which is administered by the NYS Department of State (DOS). Projects that would potentiallyimpact the habitat are reviewed by the DOS for consistency with the CMP. TheSignificant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat is discussed in the ecology section belowand in Appendix H.4.

A Coastal Assessment Form/Federal Consistency Assessment Form (CAF/FCAF) andCoastal Policy Assessment has been prepared by NYSDOT and will be submitted to theNYS Department of State as an appendix in the Design Report (See Appendix H.4).

Coastal Barrier Resources ActUnder 16 USC §§ 3501 - 3510 - the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) prohibitsspending federal funds on construction or purchase of any road, airport, boat landingfacility, or other facility on, or bridge or causeway to, any Coastal Barrier ResourcesSystem. There are certain exemptions however listed in Section 6 of CBRA includingprojects that are recreational and include wildlife enhancement measures.

The proposed project is located in a Coastal Area under the jurisdiction of CBRA or theCoastal Barrier Improvement Act. The project is located within Coastal Barrier Systemunits NY 59 and NY59P The Department consulted with the US Fish & WildlifeService during the project planning phase and has added certain wildlife enhancementmeasures to ensure consistency with the CBRA requirements. A letter from USFWS (seeAppendix H.6) lists the proposed wildlife conservation/enhancement measures andconcludes that the shared-use path project is exempt from the CBRA prohibitions.

Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas:

The Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) implements the CoastalErosion Hazard Areas program (ECL Article 34) wherein it identifies coastal erosionhazard areas and establishes standards for the issuance of coastal erosion managementpermits to control certain activities and development in those areas. The State CoastalErosion line undulates between the south side of the eastbound lanes of traffic at OceanParkway and the median area in between the east and westbound lanes. The preferredalternative is entirely north of the roadway and is therefore not within the Coastal erosionHazard area.

e. General Ecology and WildlifeThe project is located on Jones Island, a barrier island in the Atlantic Ocean to the southof Long Island, which ranges from 0.11 miles at its narrowest, to 0.96 miles at the widest.Maritime dune and beaches mark the southern, ocean-ward side of the island. The northside of the island fronts South Oyster Bay in Nassau County and Great South Bay in

IV-11

Suffolk County. On the bay side, within the project area habitats include: maritime shrubland, Salt Shrub (dominated by phragmites), maritime shrubland/ salt shrub, Salt Marsh,Mowed Lawn and Estuarine rip/rap/artificial shore.

Within the area of the preferred alternative, the habitats affected are maritime shrubland,maritime shrubland/salt shrub and mowed lawn. Habitat types shown in Figure IV-3below do not show the narrow belt of mowed lawn that borders the length of OceanParkway, rather“Mowed Lawn”is only shown where such areas are wider than thetypical shoulder. Excluding portions of the proposed shared-use path that will crossalready paved areas (<5% of project impact area), and including the actual amount ofmowed lawn area on-site, the amount of each habitat that will be impacted is below:

Habitat Type Length (m)/ Area (acre)impacted

% of total shared-use pathimpact

Mowed Lawn 11563 m / 11.43 ac 50%

Maritime Shrubland 7398 m / 7.31 ac 30%

Maritime Shrubland/ Saltshrub (dominated byphragmites)

2955 m / 2.92 ac 13%

Total natural vegetation 9,438 m / 9.83 ac 43%

Total: 22925 m / 22.66 ac

A total of 9.83 acres of natural vegetation habitat will be converted to shared-use pathpavement by this project.

IV-12

Fig

ure

IV-3

IV-13

Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Department of State)The project area is within 2 habitat areas (Great South Bay–West in Suffolk County andSouth Oyster Bay in Nassau County). The full habitat descriptions are found inAppendix H.4 and summarized below.

Great South Bay - WestWhile the mapping of this significant fish and wildlife habitat indicates it is within theproject area, the textual description defines the end of the habitat at mean high water(MHW), as the project area is entirely above MHW (approx 2.15 ft or NAVD88 0.5m),there will be no direct impacts to this habitat. The Great South Bay West contains one ofthe largest areas of unditched salt marshes on Long Island. The shallow salt marshes,intertidal flats, spoil islands and shallows provide feeding areas, species nesting andwaterfowl wintering areas for a variety of birds.

South Oyster BayThe South Oyster Bay significant fish and wildlife habitat is the entire bay whichincludes extensive areas of undeveloped salt marsh, tidal flats, dredge spoil islands, andopen water. The southern border of the habitat is defined as the centerline of the StateBoat Channel. Therefore, the project area is entirely outside of this habitat boundary.

Rare Habitats (NYS Department of Environmental Conservation; NaturalHeritage Program (NHP))

The NHP has identified several significant ecological communities and habitats locatedalong the proposed alternative route. These include: brackish interdunal swales, saltpannes, and tern nesting areas. Tern nesting areas are discussed in further detail below.The brackish interdunal swales are found between the fore dunes, primary dunes, andsecondary dunes of a maritime dunes system. Brackish interdunal swales are located onthe south side of the Ocean Parkway in the vicinity of Jones Beach and Cedar Beach andwill not be impacted by the preferred route. The salt panne area is located within a largesalt marsh complex north of the Gilgo Beach Parking Area. This community will not beimpacted by the preferred alternative.

f. Endangered or Threatened SpeciesProjects are reviewed for the presence of state protected species within ½ mile of theproject. This review is conducted, initially, utilizing the GIS data files from NYSDEC.

IV-14

The NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program has identified several significant ecologicalcommunities and habitats located along the proposed alternative route which arediscussed in the General Ecology section above. The NYSDEC has provided a NaturalHeritage Report on Rare species and Ecological Communities. In addition NYSDOThave reviewed site-specific NHP reports prepared for each State Park within the projectlimits. These reports identified three state endangered and two state threatened species inthe project area. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) has confirmedthe existence of two federally recognized threatened species within the project limits.The information provided by the resource agencies is considered sensitive, precise detailson locations may not be released to the public without permission. The following is adescription of the consultation process with state and federal agencies and a briefsummary of the species’ preferred habitats and the potential impacts of the proposed shared-use path.

The State and Federally listed threatened and endangered species potentially within theproject area are as follows:

IV-15

Table 1. State and Federal Listed SpeciesSpecies identified from initial correspondence with agencies

Species Listing Habitat ImpactPiping Plover(Charadrius melodus) -bird

FederalThreatened;StateEndangered

Barrier island. Maritime beach anddunes

The preferred alternative is not likely to adversely affectthe Piping Plover. However, as recommended by the USF&WS, conservation measures will be included in theproject to ensure no indirect impacts occur.

Seabeach Amaranth(Amaranthus pumilus) -vascular plant

FederalThreatened;StateEndangered

Broad and long sections of BarrierBeach at the edge of primary dunes

The preferred alternative is not likely to adversely affectSeabeach Amaranth. However, as recommended by theUS F&WS, conservation measures will be included in theproject to ensure no indirect impacts occur.

Least Tern (Sternaantillarum) - bird

Stateendangered

Barrier island. Maritime beach anddunes

The preferred alternative would not affect the Least Tern

Roseate Tern (Sternadougallii) - bird

FederalEndangeredStateendangered

Barrier Island. Maritime grasslandbehind primary dunes. Sandsubstrate, heavily vegetated

The preferred alternative would not affect the RoseateTern

Common tern (Sternahirundo) - bird,

Statethreatened

Barrier Island. Maritime Beach andgrassland behind primary dunes.Sand substrate, heavily vegetated.

The preferred alternative would not affect the CommonTern

Golden Dock (Rumexmaritimus var fueginus)- vascular plant,

Statethreatened

Preferred habitat - A coastal saltpond with vegetation similar to thatfound in the Atlantic Ocean BarrierBeach interdunal swale

The preferred alternative would not affect the GoldenDock.

Additional Species identified as occurring within ¼ mile of the project limitsNorthern harrier (Circuscyaneus)- bird

Statethreatened

Harrier nests are commonly locatedin dense stands of common reed(Phragmites australis) and poisonivy (Toxicodendron radicans).There are hundreds of acres of thishabitat on Jones Island.

Based on field surveys, vegetation community mappingand on-site discussions with NYSDEC wildlife biologists,no harrier nesting habitat will be directly impacted byconstruction of the preferred alternative. Much of thelandward edge of the salt shrub habitat is located betweenapproximately 15 m and 150 m (50 feet and 500 feet)away from the proposed shared-use path route.

IV-16

Federal Threatened and Endangered SpeciesProjects are reviewed for the presence of federally protected species within ½ mile of theproject. This review is conducted with consultation with the US Fish and WildlifeService (USF&WS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) forcoastal/tidal waters. The presence of protected species in a project area requiresconsultation with USF&WS pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1972(ESA). Correspondence between the USF&WS and NYSDOT is contained withinAppendix H.6.

All preliminary alternatives have been developed to avoid known areas of potentialthreatened and endangered species habitat as provided by the USF&WS. Therefore,impacts on threatened and endangered species as a result of the shared-use path projectwould be minimal or negligible because of the limited disturbance and narrow width ofconstruction associated with it. South side alternatives were eliminated partly due toconcern for indirect impact to these species. Continuing coordination with USF&WS andthe NYSDEC is recommended for the duration of the shared-use path constructionbecause of the minor amount of noise and vibration. Construction may be limited byNYSDEC during the breeding season of the Piping Plover and other birds.

The USF&WS (the Service) has documented the presence of two Federally-listedthreatened species, the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and seabeach amaranth(Amaranthus pumilus), which breed/grow along the ocean beaches owned by the NewYork State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) south ofthe proposed shared-use path. The Service has determined that the potential indirecteffect of “disturbance associated with intrusion into protected areas along the oceanshoreline from shared-use path users who may illegally cross Ocean Parkway to recreate” does exist.

Coordination with the Service on this project to avoid potential adverse impacts began in1999 with NYSDOT being designated as the non-Federal representative for ESAconsultation by the FHWA. Discussions and field meetings with the Service identifiedpotential areas of concern regarding possible additional crossings of the parkway and alsomeasures that would eliminate the areas of concern.

As a result of this coordination, the NYSDOT and FHWA determined that the projectwas “not likely to adversely affect” listed species. The Service concurred with thedetermination that inclusion of certain mitigation/conservation measures would renderthe potential indirect effect discountable. The measures discussed include: 1) PublicOutreach (explaining piping plover/seabeach amaranth ecology and human threats to thespecies, warn against illegal crossing, and inform users of the distance to the next legalcross-over); 2) Cross-Over Reduction Plantings (Installation and maintenance of densenative vegetation in the median at illegal crossings) ; 3) Cross-over Monitoring (todocument any illegal crossings of Ocean Parkway to the ocean beaches) ; 4)Coordination with New York State Police: NYSDOT will (coordinate with lawenforcement for increased enforcement at areas where illegal cross-overs occur); 5)Assistance in Plover Habitat Enhancement Project: (Assistance will be provided to theTown of Babylon to restore “ephemeral pool foraging habitat for the piping plovers at Cedar Beach”); 6) Culvert Closure (Locked gates will be installed to close two extant

IV-17

pedestrian culverts located within the JFK bird sanctuary to preclude south side access byshared-use path users).

NYSDOT will incorporate the listed conservation measures and therefore, consultation inaccordance with Section 7 of the ESA is complete.

The alternatives that pass through the John F. Kennedy Memorial Wildlife Sanctuaryhave been dismissed due to the higher degree of environmental concerns.

In addition in regard to the Northern Harrier nesting in the shrubland north of theproposed shared-use path, it should be noted that the original shared-use path alignmentwas planned for a 10m typical offset from the parkway travel lanes. After discussionwith NYSDEC and local wildlife experts, the offset was decreased to 6m typical nearnaturally-vegetated areas and reduced to 3m for a specific area of concern near CedarBeach.

SUMMARY: As discussed above, consultation with the USF&WS and the NYSDECNatural Heritage Program and regional staff biologists indicates that several federally andstate-listed bird and plant species occur within the project area. FHWA/NYSDOT hasdetermined there will be no adverse effect to the listed species with the conditions listedabove.

g. Critical Environmental AreasUnder Section 617.14(g) of SEQRA local agencies may designate specific geographic areaswithin their boundaries as "Critical Environmental Areas" (CEAs). A review of the lists forNassau and Suffolk counties indicates that no locally designated CEAs exist within theproject boundaries.

h. Invasive SpeciesExecutive Order 131121, requires federal agencies to; 1. prevent the introduction ofinvasive species; 2. provide for their control; and 3. minimize the economic, ecologic andhuman health impacts that invasive species cause. Federal agencies cannot authorize,fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introductionor spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless all reasonablemeasures to minimize risk of harm have been analyzed and considered. “Known invasive plants” are defined as those listed on the official noxious weed list of the Statein whichthe activity occurs. New York State Invasive Species Task Force was enacted by NYSlegislature in 2003. As the number of species and the populations of invasive species inNew York State in general and in Nassau and Suffolk counties in particular is increasingrapidly, priorities for management have been established. In coordination with the L.I.Weed Management Area (LIWMA) work group, NYSDOT Priority invasive speciesinclude: Purple Loosestrife, Common Reed, Japanese Knotweed, as well as priorities

1 as supported by elements of USC 4321 et seq., National Environmental Policy Act, 1969, 16 USC 4701 etseq, Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention Control Act, 1990, 7 USC 150aa et seq, Federal PlantPest Act, and 7 USC 2801 et seq, Federal Noxious Weed Act, 1974

IV-18

determined through accepted National and State lists with consideration of Regionalpriorities. Within the proposed OSP Shared-use path project area, the only priorityspecies present in substantial quantities is Common reed (Phragmites australis). Asummary of relevant information is listed below:

Priority Invasive Species as Identified by NYSDOT and NYS Invasive Species Councilin the Project Area

Common Name(Identifying agency)

Scientific Name LIWMA2 Category(2002)

Comments

Common Reed/Phragmites(NYSDOT priority)

Phragmitesaustralis

Contain/ suppress(widespread, abundantand a serious threat toone or more naturalareas)

Native andInvasive varieties.Known to bepresent adjacentto project area.

An invasive species management plan will be completed as part of the landscape planduring final design of the project (following guidelines discussed in Appendix H.7). Theaim of this plan will be to identify priority invasive species within the limits of the projectarea and control those species through best management practices. For the purposes ofthis project, inventory and management of priority invasive species will be limited tovegetation on the north side of the Ocean Parkway within or adjacent to the proposedpath of the shared-use path. It should be noted, however, that in the project area,Phragmites may provide necessary visual screening and cover for sensitive wildlifespecies north of the Parkway. Accordingly this consideration will be an important factorin the invasive species management plan.

During construction, contractors will follow best management practices including thoselaid out in NYSDOT’s “Attachment 4: Invasive Species Control measures for Maintenance and Construction” (See Appendix H.7 for excerpts).

i. Historic and Cultural ResourcesThe Ocean Parkway in its entirety and the parks and parkways at the eastern end [ Gilgo,Captree and Robert Moses (originally Fire Island) State Parks, and Robert Moses(originially Captree) State Parkway] have been determined to be eligible for the NationalRegister of Historic Places in 1978. A designation of eligibility effectively classifies it asa protected historic resource, administered by state and federal regulations.

Additionally, the Ocean Parkway travels through Jones Beach State Park (JBSP), whichis also eligible for inclusion on the National and State Register of Historic Places. Thenomination boundaries were chosen to encompass Jones Beach State Park and the earliestand most essential components of the transportation system constructed to provide access

2 This species is included in Long Island Weed Management Area (LIWMA) working list as shown inAppendix H.7

IV-19

to the park and circulation within it. These are defined as Wantagh and MeadowbrookState Parkways (including the causeways) between JBSP and the Southern StateParkway, all of Loop and Bay State Parkways, and Ocean State Parkway within theboundary of JBSP. The Jones Beach Monument (water tower), is included within thenomination of JBSP and is within the vicinity of the project.

The proposed project has undergone certain design procedures that have been establishedto specifically address the historic nature of the existing land, as well as the generalhistoric resources of the parkway and adjacent park lands.

Proposed modifications to the parkway, signs, structures and other features of the shared-use path which could impact the historic resources of this facility, are being carefullyreviewed and coordinated with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation andHistoric Preservation (NYSOPRHP). It was agreed at the October 20, 1999 meeting withthe NYSOPRHP that this project requires a Section 4(f) Evaluation. A programmatic 4(f)evaluation has been completed and is in Appendix H.3.

NYSDOT submitted a Determination of Effects Report to NYSOPRHP for review inaccordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Actof 1966 and Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and HistoricPreservation Law. On December 18, 2001, NYSOPRHP responded by issued aconditional "No Adverse Effect" on the National Register eligible Ocean Parkway (seecorrespondence in Appendix H.3b). In accordance with this conditional "No AdverseEffect", NYSDOT will continue to coordinate with NYSOPRHP into the Final DesignPhase, incorporating their review comments.

j. Visual ResourcesA complete Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) has been completed and is attached inAppendix I. The methodology for the VIA generally follows the format described inVisual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects (US Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy, March 1981), andconforms with NYSDOT's Visual Assessment Policy (Engineering Instruction 88-43).The following is a summary of the VIA.

Existing Visual Environment:A landscape unit is an area with visual boundaries that has relatively homogeneous visualcharacteristics. The separation of the project area into landscape units allows aconvenient and effective means of assessing visual impacts. For purposes of this VIA,three types of landscape units have been identified. The landscape units are as follows:

Landscape Unit 1 - Undeveloped barrier beach - The undeveloped barrier beach thatexists in its natural state along the Ocean Parkway.

Landscape Unit 2 - Developed parkland (Bay Side) - Because alternatives for theshared-use path on the south side of the parkway have been deemed as unfeasible onlythe bay side (north side) of the parkway is assessed. Developed parkland includes JonesBeach State Park, Tobay Beach Park, Cedar Beach Marina and Captree State Park.

IV-20

Landscape Unit 3 - Developed residential area - These areas exist immediately adjacentto the parkway at three locations; West Gilgo Beach, Gilgo Beach and Oak Beach.

The existing visual quality for each of the landscape units is summarized in the followingtable:

Table 24 - Existing Visual Characteristics

Landscape Unit Vividness Intactness Unity Visual Quality

Undeveloped BarrierBeach High High

Moderateto High High

Developed Parkland Moderate Low Moderate Moderate

Residential Area Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Viewer ClassificationsViewers within the visual environment can be categorized into viewer groups that havesimilar reactions to the appearance of visual resources. Four separate viewer groups arerepresented in the project area:

Travelers along the Ocean Parkway - This group maintains a wide range of diversity,from the local commuter to the beach traveler.

Visitors at the public recreational facilities - This group consists of beach and parkvisitors.

Residents of West Gilgo and Gilgo Beach - The communities that would be affected byan alignment along the north side of the parkway are West Gilgo Beach and Gilgo Beach.

Bicyclist and Pedestrians - This group consists of people walking or bicycling along theparkway specifically for transportation or recreational purposes.

The following table summarizes the sensitivity, exposure and response of each of theviewer groups:

Table 25 - Viewer Classification

Viewer Viewer Viewer

Viewer Group Sensitivity Exposure Response

Travelers along Parkway Moderate High Moderate to

High

Visitors to Parks Moderate High Moderate

ResidentsHigh High High

Bicyclists and Pedestrians High High High

IV-21

Impacts on Visual Resources:The VIA investigated the change to the visual environment caused by the project, andpredicted the potential visual impact for each landscape unit. Change in visual resourcesis measured in terms of change in visual character and visual quality. Viewer response ismeasured in terms of change in viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity.

The following table summarizes the change in visual character and visual quality of eachof the landscape units:

Table 26 - Visual Impacts by Landscape Unit

Change in Existing Predicted

Visual Visual Visual Potential

Landscape Unit Character Quality Quality Visual Impact

Undeveloped Barrier Moderate to Small

Beach Slight High High Negative

Developed Parkland None Moderate Moderate None

Residential Area None Moderate ModerateSmallNegative

Based on changes to the visual environment and the response to the change, the followingvisual impacts are predicted for each of the viewer groups:

Travelers along the Ocean Parkway - A small negative visual impact is predicted fortravelers along the Ocean Parkway in Landscape Unit 1 - Undeveloped Barrier Beach.The shared-use path and its users would introduce a new man-made visual element intothe view from the road of the natural barrier beach landscape and Great South Bay. Thedegree of impact results from the close proximity of the shared-use path to the parkway.Where the shared-use path is immediately adjacent to the parkway, additional barrierswould be necessary, which would increase the negative visual impact. The negativevisual impact would also increase in severity where the users of the shared-use pathwould be at the same elevation of motorists, and the motorists distant view would beinterrupted.

Not all of the people in this viewer group would experience a moderate negative impact.The sensitivity to visual change varies with the type of traveler. The shared-use pathwould have little or no visual impact on commuters or travelers to recreational facilitiesas these travelers would be more interested in mobility and less sensitive to their visualsurroundings. Leisurely travelers or sightseers interested in experiencing the barrierbeach landscape would be negatively impacted by the shared-use path and its users.

Little or no impact is anticipated for this viewer group in Landscape Unit 2 DevelopedParkland or Landscape Unit 3 - Residential Areas. Travelers currently view people and

IV-22

man-made visual elements in these areas. The shared-use path would be compatible withthe existing visual elements.

Visitors at the public recreational facilities -With the shared-use path located on the northside of the parkway near existing parking lots, no impact is predicted for visitors to thefour recreational facilities along the north side of the Ocean Parkway. The onlyexception is at the southeast corner of Jones Beach State Park in the vicinity of Zach’s Bay. The shared-use path would be viewed in the context of an open space enclosed bythe parkway, the bay and the surrounding landscape. Many of the park’s pathways and architectural features are within view of this area and visual compatibility would beimportant.

Residents of West Gilgo Beach and Gilgo Beach - There would be low negative visualimpact on the view of the road from the adjacent residential areas. Although there wouldonly be a slight change in visual quality, the response to this change by the residentswould be high resulting in a small negative visual impact. The greatest impact would beon residents with homes adjacent to the parkway where the recent evergreen buffer hasdied and been removed.

Bicyclists and Pedestrians - There would be a high positive impact on this group ofviewers in Landscape Unit 1 - Undeveloped Barrier Beach. Currently very fewpedestrians and bicyclists walk or bicycle in the undeveloped area because of the lack offacilities. Bicycling and walking would greatly increase in these areas after the shared-use path has been completed and opened to the public. As a result, new views in an areaof moderate to high visual quality would occur for a viewer group with high sensitivityand exposure.

There would be no visual impact on this viewer group in parklands and residential areas.In these areas, positive visual impacts resulting from new views associated with thefacility would be offset by the small negative visual impact caused by the addition of thenew facility in these areas.

The following table summarizes the visual impact of the shared-use path project on eachviewer group in each landscape unit:

Table 27 - Visual Impact by Viewer Group

LandscapeUnit

Travelers onthe OceanParkway

Visitors atParks

AdjacentResidents

Bicyclists andPedestrians

UndevelopedBarrier Beach

ModerateNegative None N/A High Positive

DevelopedParkland None None N/A None

ResidentialArea None None Low Negative None

IV-23

Recommended Measures to Mitigate Adverse Visual Impacts:The following measures can be applied to the shared-use path design to reduce the impactand improve the visual environment:

Landscape Unit I - Undeveloped Barrier Beach : Sensitivity to surrounding landform -The shared-use path should be designed with a curvilinear or undulating layout with longgradual sweeping curves. This would soften the edges of the hard pavement allowing forthe lines to be more compatible with the existing landform and more consistent with thelong flowing lines of the parkway. The alignment of the shared-use path should avoiddisturbing the existing level landform and grading should be sensitive to the gradualnatural grades. This would help achieve a visual harmony between the proposed shared-use path and the existing landscape.

Vegetative buffers and distance from Parkway - Where the landform and existing plantmaterials permit, the shared-use path should be aligned away from the parkway amongthe existing natural vegetation to allow a natural buffer between the parkway and theshared-use path. These areas may be supplemented with indigenous maritime plantmaterial to help provide a visual enclosure. In these areas, the shared-use path and theusers would be shielded from the view of travelers along the Ocean Parkway. This wouldhelp reduce the exposure of the view from the parkway, and maintain the visualcontinuity and apparent scale of the existing landscape.

Changes in elevation - Alignment of the shared-use path along the downward slope of theparkway ROW should be considered. This would help minimize the visual impact of theshared-use path and the users by suppressing the activity below the grade of the elevatedparkway. The distinct edge of the shared-use path would be obscured and the users wouldbe removed from the viewer’s visual horizon. This would help preserve distant views across the bay.

Landscape Unit II - Developed Parkland: Shared-use path Alignment - The north andsouth sides of the developed parklands maintain separate and distinct characteristics. Thesouthern side, especially at Jones Beach, maintains a higher degree of refinement anddesign. This is exhibited through the existing architecture, circulation patterns andlandscaped areas. A northern alignment would greatly reduce visual impact on theseareas. From the north side, the shared-use path would generally be viewed from anelevation depressed in the parking fields. As previously discussed the viewers in thisarea are less sensitive to change and a landscaped buffer or maintaining existingvegetation would help minimize the visual impact of the shared-use path.

Design Park-like Features - The state and town parks along the Ocean Parkway have sitefeatures such as pavement designs and patterns, signing, barriers, site amenities andlandscaping, that give each park its own distinct identity. The design of the shared-usepath and its amenities should complement the design of the park facilities. Amenitiessuch as picnic tables and benches should be installed along the shared-use path to create afacility more visually compatible with the park.

Landscape Unit III - Developed Residential Areas: Limit Distance from Parkway - Theshared-use path should be aligned along the parkway in such a manner that it minimizesthe visual encroachment on the community. The Ocean Parkway borders many homes

IV-24

directly along the north side. These homes would receive the greatest visual impact.Their present foreground view in this direction is of the parkway and its related elements.Alignment of the shared-use path in close proximity to the parkway and reinforcement ofthe landscaped buffers in these areas would help minimize the visual impact.

Maintain Parkway Elevation - Setting the elevation at or near that of the parkway wouldadditionally help minimize visual impact. This would maintain all activity along onecontinuous visual plane, that of the existing parkway. Although activity would increasein these areas, visual impact would be less likely to be greatly affected.

Establish Vegetative Buffer - In many of the residential areas, the existing bufferprimarily consisted of Black Pine evergreen trees, which had become diseased andsubsequently removed. This has left open areas between the residential areas and theparkway, especially in the vicinity of Gilgo Beach. The introduction of indigenous plantmaterials to re-establish the buffer would greatly reduce any visual impact of the shared-use path and help screen the existing parkway.

k. Parks and Recreation FacilitiesThe seven park and recreation facilities that exist in or adjacent to the project area includeJones Beach State Park, publicly owned John F. Kennedy Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary,Tobay Beach Park, Gilgo State Park, Gilgo Beach, Cedar Beach Marina and CaptreeState Park3. These properties are all classified as Section 4(f) Resources and mentioned inthe Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation in Appendix H.3. The western end of OceanParkway and Jones Beach State Park are listed on the National Historic Register as basedon Criteria A, B and C of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1996(as amended). Inaddition to its historical status, Jones Beach State Park is also classified as a Section 4(f)Resource because it is a public recreation area. In accordance with 23 CFR § 771.135, allalternatives must be coordinated with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreationand Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) during the preliminary planning process.

New York State Parkland under the jurisdiction of the NYSOPRHP include Jones BeachState Park, Gilgo State Park and Captree State Park. The shared-use path does not passthrough Gilgo State Park, however, due to its close proximity to the shared-use path, ithas been included as a Section 4(f) resource in addition to Jones Beach State Park andCaptree State Park. In accordance with 23 CFR § 771.135, all alternatives must becoordinated with NYSOPRHP during the preliminary planning process.

Tobay Beach Park, Gilgo Beach, Cedar Beach Marina are public recreation areas, alongwith the publicly owned John F. Kennedy Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary, all qualify asSection 4(f) Resources according to 23 CFR § 771.135 and require coordination with thetowns whose jurisdiction they fall under. The Towns of Babylon and Oyster Bay haveboth indicated that the proposed shared-use path will not impair the use of any of theirproperties, and NYSOPRHP has issued a conditional “No-Adverse Effect” on the National Register eligible Ocean Parkway (see Appendix H.3b for correspondence).

IV-25

Tobay Beach Park and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary are bothowned by the Town of Oyster Bay. In accordance with Alternative I-A, the section ofshared-use path adjacent to the wildlife sanctuary would be constructed within theexisting right-of way of the Ocean Parkway. Alternative IV, the only alternative thatpassed through the sanctuary, was dismissed due to the environmental impacts.Alternative I-A avoids known areas of threatened and endangered species habitat asprovided by the United State Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore impacts on threatenedand endangered species as a result of the shared-use path would be minimal or negligibledue to the limited disturbance and narrow width of construction associated with it.

Because of the large traffic volumes at the Tobay Beach Park parking lot entrance and thepossible bicycle/vehicle conflicts, the shared-use path would be placed to the north of theparking lot. Impacts on the park as a result of the shared-use path would be minimal ornegligible because of the location around the existing parking lot and narrow width ofconstruction associated with it.

Gilgo Beach and Cedar Beach Marina are owned by the Town of Babylon and consideredpublic recreation facilities. The placement of the proposed shared-use path along thesouth side of the parking lot would result in minimal or negligible impacts to the GilgoBeach facility. At Cedar Beach Marina, the proposed shared-use path would be placedalong the south side of the park, but would enter the park to cross the entrance road andpath to the pedestrian underpass, keeping impacts to a minimum.

A negative declaration/ 4(f) statement for independent shared-use path or walkwayconstruction was prepared by FHWA May 23, 1977 (see appendix H.3). The OceanParkway Shared-use path project meets all the criteria discussed in the negativedeclaration memo as follows:

1. This project is an independent shared-use path construction project which requiresthe use of recreation and park areas established and maintained primarily foractive recreation, open space, or similar purposes.

2. The officials having jurisdiction over Section 4(f) property Ocean Parkway(NYSOPRHP) have given their approval in writing that the project is acceptableand consistent with the designated use of the properties (see December 10, 2001letter from NYSOPRHP in Appendix H.3b).

The officials having jurisdiction over Section 4(f) properties John F. KennedyMemorial Wildlife Sanctuary and Tobay Beach Park (Town of Oyster BaySupervisor) have given their approval in writing that the project is acceptable andconsistent with the designated use of the properties (see January 10, 2002 letterfrom the Town of Oyster Bay Supervisor’s Office in Appendix H.3b).

The officials having jurisdiction over Section 4(f) properties Gilgo Beach andCedar Beach Marina (Town of Babylon Supervisor) have given their approval inwriting that the project is acceptable and consistent with the designated use of theproperties (see January 10, 2002 letter from the Town of Babylon Supervisor’s Office in Appendix H.3b).

IV-26

3. All possible planning to minimize harm has been accomplished in the locationand design of the shared-use path.

4. The potential indirect effect of “disturbance associated with intrusion into protected areas along the ocean shoreline from shared-use path users who mayillegally cross Ocean Parkway to recreate” does exist, as determined by the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. This effectwill be mitigated (see November 15, 2005 letter in Appendix H.3b from TheUnited States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service).

5. There is no use of land from a publicly owned wildlife or waterfowl refuge.

6. There is use of land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance.The Ocean Parkway was determined eligible for the State and National HistoricalRegister on February 13, 1987 and meets criteria A, B, and C of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act of 1996 (as amended). However, the NYSOPRHP hasdetermined that the project will have No Adverse Effect on the National Registereligible Ocean Parkway provided final designs are submitted to NYSOPRHP forreview (see December 18, 2001 letter in Appendix H.3b from NYSOPRHP).

7. The project does not involve unusual circumstances (major impacts, adverseeffects, or controversy).

8. The project is not incidental items of construction in conjunction with highwayimprovements having the primary purpose of serving motor vehicles.

9. The shared-use path is not an incidental item of construction in conjunction withhighway improvements having the primary purpose of serving motor vehicles.

10. The primary purpose for the independent shared-use path is to provide a facilityfor traffic which would normally use a highway route. The proposed project willconnect the existing Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-use path from its southerlyterminus at Jones Beach State Park in Nassau County to Captree State Park inSuffolk County. This shared-use trail will provide the opportunity forenvironmentally sensitive, safe, and non-motorized modes of transportation andrecreation. The provision of non-motorized access to recreational andemployment facilities along the proposed shared-use path will reduce highwaycongestion and improve air quality.

11. Written approval of the following officials having specific jurisdiction over the4(f) property confirm that all possible planning to minimize harm has beenaccomplished in the location and design of the facility:

The officials having jurisdiction over Section 4(f) property OceanParkway (NYSOPRHP) have given their approval in writing (seeDecember 18, 2001 letter from NYSOPRHP in Appendix H.3b).

The officials having jurisdiction over Section 4(f) properties John F.Kennedy Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary and Tobay Beach Park (Town ofOyster Bay Supervisor) have given their approval in writing (see January

IV-27

10, 2002 letter from the Town of Oyster Bay Supervisor’s Office in Appendix H.3b).

The officials having jurisdiction over Section 4(f) properties Gilgo Beachand Cedar Beach Marina (Town of Babylon Supervisor) have given theirapproval in writing (see January 10, 2002 letter from the Town of BabylonSupervisor’s Office in Appendix H.3b).

12. Displacement of families and businesses will not be required.

13. NYSDOT will be responsible for maintenance of the shared-use pathway.NYSDOT currently lets contracts to maintain the Region’s shared-use paths on abiannual basis.

14. No motorized vehicles will be permitted on the shared-use path except formaintenance purposes.

15. This project will be accessible to users and is located and designed pursuant to anoverall plan. It is listed on the Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan/VisionStatement and the Nassau/Suffolk Transportation Coordinating CommitteeTransportation Improvement Program. The project is also included in the LongIsland Non-Motorized Transportation Study.

Based on the above and the scope of this shared-use path project, it is determined that:

There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of Section 4(f) lands, and

the conditions for approval and coordination with NYSPORHP and Townofficials ensure that the proposal includes all possible planning to minimize harmresulting from such use.

Section 6(f) and Section 1010Under Section 6(f), US Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and Section 1010 of theUrban Park and Recovery Act properties acquired or developed through these fundingmechanisms federal monies may not be converted to other than outdoor recreational uses.As the proposed shared-use path is an outdoor recreational use, the project complies withthese regulations and no further coordination is needed.

l. Farmland AssessmentThe proposed shared-use path would not affect prime farmland or soils of importance tofarmland.

m. Air, Noise and Energy

1.) Air Quality, Conformity and Energy Analysis:

IV-28

A carbon monoxide (CO) air quality analysis is not necessary since this project will notincrease traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances or change other existingconditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the National Ambient AirQuality Standards.

The subject project has not been classified as a Type II Action as defined and listed in theNYSDOT SEQR regulations provided as 17 NYCRR §15.14(d) & (e), but has beendetermined to result in no increased traffic volumes. The subject project actions do notindividually or cumulatively have a significant effect on particulate matter (PM)emissions. It can therefore be concluded that the project will have no significant adverseimpact on ambient PM levels.

The project has been included in the current 2006-2010 TIP, and the project is exemptfrom regional emission analysis because it is a Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility. Theproject also does not meet the hot-spot criteria to qualify as a project of air qualityconcern. Therefore, no project-level conformity determination is required.

The project does not meet any thresholds that would warrant an Energy/Greenhouse GasAnalysis, and it is exempt from Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) analysisrequirements. Therefore the project will not have adverse effects on energy consumptionor greenhouse gas emissions, and will not have meaningful potential MSATs effects.

With some local mode shifts from automobiles to bicycles, it is anticipated that there willbe some improvements in air quality.

2.) Noise Analysis:

Federal noise regulation(23CFR 772) and the New York State Department ofTransportation policy is to evaluate noise abatement, such as installation of noise barriersat noise impacted areas, only as part of major construction or reconstruction projects. Amajor construction or reconstruction project is defined as a project on a new location(where no highway previously existed), or a project with a significant change inhorizontal or vertical alignment, or a project that increases the number of through trafficlanes.

The Ocean Parkway Shared-use path project does not satisfy any of the criteria defining amajor construction or reconstruction project; it does not involve addition of through lanesor a significant change in horizontal or vertical alignment of the Ocean Parkway. TheOcean Parkway will remain unchanged throughout the project limits. With no newthrough lanes on Ocean Parkway, no substantial change to the noise environment wouldbe expected. This project will not cause noise impacts; therefore, no noise abatementanalysis is required for this project.

IV-29

The construction equipment would comply with state emission control standards, so therewould be minimal to no reduction in air quality due to their operation. The proposedproject would generate minimal noise related impacts. All equipment and operationswould comply with applicable state noise reduction standards. Off-site allowable decibellevels would not be exceeded as a result of the proposed project.

n. Contaminated Materials AssessmentThe project would not introduce any hazardous waste or contaminated materials. Ahazardous waste/hazardous substance assessment was performed, and it did not identifyany contaminated areas or regions of potential contamination within the limits of theproject. However, during field investigations of the Captree area, a typical dredge sitewas identified. A subsequent Phase II Environmental Investigation conducted byEnvironmental Planning & Management, Inc. (EPM) of this site to two feet below gradedid not identify Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Polynuclear AronmaticHydrocarbons (PAHs), or total RCRA Metal in excess of applicable regulatoryguidelines/standards. EPM concluded that due to the presence of trace detectable PAHcompounds in the on-site soils, re-use on-site is permitted under 6NYCRR Part 360Beneficial Use Determinations (BUDs). EPM also mentioned that if off-site disposal isdeemed necessary, the soil must be further analyzed for waste characterizationparameters and disposed of or remediated at an approved waste disposal/recycling facilityin accordance with all state, local and federal guidelines.

o. Construction ImpactsAny adverse impacts associated with the construction of the shared-use path would beminimized by maintaining traffic flow, restricting construction during peak summermonths and reducing the area of disturbance. Furthermore, it is anticipated that theproject will be constructed in stages and will not involve disturbance of the entire projectarea at one time.

p. Anticipated Permits and ApprovalsAnticipated permits and approvals include, but may not be limited to:

NEPA determination for federal-aid projects

SEQRA determination

Programmatic Section 4(f) approval

FHWA concurrence with Section 106 (historic preservation determination )

NYS OPRHP historic preservation consultations

NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands permit

Coastal Zone Management approvals (NYSDOS)

Endangered Species Act Coordination (USF&WS)

CHAPTER V - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative I-A, which places the bicycle path to the north side of Ocean Parkway andwithin its ROW, is the preferred alternative. This alternative would provide the desiredconnection between the Ellen Farrant Memorial Shared-use path and Captree State Park,establishing a continuous path by which bicyclists, pedestrians, in-line skaters andshared-use trail users could access numerous Barrier Beach destinations along OceanParkway.

The overall cost for Alternative I-A would be $12.6M, approximately the same as theother alternatives, while the impacts would be substantially less than those of the otheralternatives.

The following table presents a tabulated summary of advantages and disadvantages forthe feasible“build” alternative, I-A:

Table 28 - Alternative I-A Evaluation Summary

Advantages

Section 1(Jones Beach State Parkto Tobay Beach Park)

Section 2(Tobay Beach Park toCedar Beach Marina)

Section 3(Cedar Beach Marina to

Captree State Park)

Alignment avoidsconflicting with the fragiledune system that currentlyprotects the barrier islandon the south side. Providescontinuity with the existingEllen Farrant MemorialShared-use path (that runsalong the Wantagh StatePkwy).

Alignment avoidsconflicting with thefragile dune system thatcurrently protects thebarrier island on the southside. Avoids impactinghabitat of endangeredspecies.

Bicycle/vehicle conflicts wouldnot occur at Oak Beach parkinglot, the fifth busiest turn-offintersecting the Ocean Pkwy.Avoids impacting habitat ofendangered species.

Disadvantages

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3

Bicycle/vehicle conflictexists at Gilgo Beachparking lot, the thirdbusiest turn-offintersecting OceanParkway.

Bicycle/vehicle conflicts wouldoccur at Cedar Beach Park, thefourth busiest turn-off intersectingOcean Parkway.

V-1

cover page volume i - new york state department of ... · volume i pin 0006.11.121 ocean parkway...

Documents