View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Final – Nov 1 Page 1
Mohawk-Erie Multimodal Transportation Corridor Study
Meeting Summary
Corridor-wide Project Advisory Committee (CPAC) Meeting
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
1 p.m. – 4 p.m.
Albany Public Library – Downtown Albany
ABOUT MOHAWK-ERIE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) have jointly launched a study of the Mohawk-Erie Multimodal Transportation Corridor (referred to as the Mohawk-Erie Corridor or the Corridor). This 400-mile corridor is one of New York State’s critical trade corridors, is important for non-business leisure travel and tourism, and is also integral to national and international economic concerns.
The Mohawk-Erie Corridor connects major centers of commerce within and beyond New York State. The Corridor directly serves the major metropolitan areas of Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. It continues eastward to Boston and southwest to Cleveland. It connects to other corridors for access north to Canada and south to New York City and beyond.
The study purpose is to produce a vision and plan of action that will enable transportation providers
in the Mohawk-Erie Corridor to effectively and efficiently address the transportation challenges of
the future. The vision and plan will be used to guide future decision-making. The plan will be
developed within a framework of several scenarios that articulate the trade-offs resulting from each
scenario. It will identify mutually supportive investments and actions that make the best use of
scarce resources.
September 15, 2010 CPAC Meeting Purpose, Agenda and Attendees
The purpose of this first meeting of the CPAC was to provide key stakeholders with information
about the study process and initiate the dialogue on how transportation can support economic
development goals. Two exercises were conducted to determine the economic sectors/engines
important in the corridor and their particular transportation needs.
A copy of the agenda follows and a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached at the back of
this document. There were 40 participants at the meeting (see Table 1).
Final – Nov 1 Page 2
Final – Nov 1 Page 3
Status Title First Last Company Title CompanyMember Mr. Bruce Becker President Empire State Passenger Association
Member Ms. Hannah Blake Erie Canalway Heritage Corridor Commission
Member Ms. Maria Chau Statewide Planner and Research/T2 Federal Highway Administration New York Division
Member Mr. Joseph DeFronzo Director Business Development New York State Thruway Authority
Member Mr. R.W. Groneman Public Information Specialist New York State Thruway Authority
Member Mr. James Held Empire State Development
Member Mr. William Hollister Principal Officer Policy & Development Amtrak General Offices
Member Ms. Kate Lawson Associate Professor Geography and Planning The State University of New York-Albany
Member Ms. Sharon Leighton Director Community Relations Canals New York State Canal Corporation
Member Mr. Ray Melleady Vice President Parts Management Services New York Public Transit Association
Member Mr. Kevin Millington New York State Department of State (Smart Growth)
Member Mr. Christopher O'Neill Senior Transportation Planner II Capital District Transportation Committee
Member Mr. Walter Pacholczak Director of Government Affairs The Business Council of New York State
Member Mr. Steven Potter Assistant Vice President Car Management CSX/CSX Transportation
Member Mr. Joel Russell President New York Aviation Management
Member Mr. Norm Schneider Executive Director Railroads of New York
Member Mr. Joseph D. Tario Manager
New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority
Member Ms. Lynn Weiskopf Mohawk-Erie Project Director New York State Department of Transportation
Member Mr. Jerry Yomoah Director of Infrastructure Programs New York State Chamber of Commerce
Alternate Mr. Chris Anderson Association of Towns of the State of New York
Alternate Professor Jeff Ban Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Alternate Mr. Rick Crawford Norfolk Southern
Alternate Ms. Fran Gotcsik Director of Programs and Policy Parks and Trails New York
Alternate Ms. Tarah Harkins CSX/CSX Transportation
Alternate Mr. Drew Marrs Norfolk Southern
Alternate Ms. Nicole Willis New York Farm Bureau
Project Team Mr. Dave Rosenberg Mohawk-Erie Project Manager New York State Department of Transportation
Project Team Ms. Vanessa Saari Mohawk-Erie Project Assistant New York State Department of Transportation
Project Team Mr. Anthony Longe Mohawk-Erie Project Manager New York State Thruway Authority
Project Team Ms. Melissa Ziegler Project Manager Wilbur Smith Associates
Project Team Mr. Jim Levy Deputy Project Manager Wilbur Smith Associates
Project Team Ms. Linda Carpenter Public Outreach Coordinator Wilbur Smith Associates
Other attendee Ms. Elizabeth Novak New York State Thruway Authority
Other attendee Ms Cynthia McGrath New York State Thruway Authority
Other attendee Mr. Jim Davis New York State Department of Transportation
Other attendee Mr. David Chan High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Manager New York State Department of Transportation
Other attendee Mr. Jim Cartin HNTB
Other attendee Mr. Peter Melewski HNTB
Other attendee Ms. Lindsay Zefting HNTB
Other attendee Mr. Scott Wigger Plummer and Associates
Table 1: September 15, 2010 CPAC Attendance List
How was the Meeting Rated by Participants?
Comment cards were provided to participants to rate the meeting performance. A total of 15 were
returned. In general, the meeting received high marks (generally 8.6 out of 10). Some comments
received included:
“The meeting provided very good overview…..I learned quite a lot – from other attendees as
well as the presenters”
“Good mixture of people on corridor-wide advisory committee”
“A great meeting especially in terms of gathering input from the audience”
“Very well organized meeting and agenda – good flow – not too long”
6
5
4
3
2
1
6 7.5 8 9 10
dist
ribu
tion
of
15
resp
onse
s re
ceiv
ed
s cores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent
Clarity of Objectives
avg=8.3 6
5
4
3
2
1
7 7.5 8 9 10
Achievement of Objectives
dist
ribu
tion
of
15
resp
onse
s re
ceiv
ed
s cores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent
avg=8.5 6
5
4
3
2
1
7 8 8.4 9 10
Opportunity to Provide Input, Quality of Exercises
dist
ribu
tion
of
15
resp
onse
s re
ceiv
ed
s cores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent
avg=8.9
Final – Nov 1 Page 4
SUMMARY OF MEETING
The meeting began with self introductions and opening remarks by Lynn Weiskopf from the New York
State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and Tony Longe from the New York State Thruway
Authority (NYSTA). The importance of a stakeholder driven process was emphasized and thanks were
given to the attendees for devoting their time and energy to this important project.
Melissa Ziegler from Wilbur Smith Associates gave a PowerPoint presentation providing information on
the study and the results of an initial strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT) analysis. The
purpose of the SWOT analysis presentation was to provide participants with an understanding about
existing conditions and activities in the corridor in order to engage in an informed discussion about how
transportation investments can support the region. A synopsis of the SWOT analysis shows:
Strengths:
Diverse regional economy
Multimodal transportation networks
Educational resources
Growth in exports
Entrepreneurship
Educated workforce
Weaknesses:
Declining population
Lagging Job Growth
Condition and Age of Infrastructure
Impediments to multimodal connectivity
Opportunities:
Build on new technologies, green industries
Growth in exports
Value of multimodal connections
Tourism
Threats:
Increased global competition, high business costs
Funding for transportation and economic development
In the discussion following the presentation participants shared their views on the corridor’s strengths
and areas for consideration:
1) The corridor connects several major cities and is a gateway to connect with the Northeast,
Canada and the West.
2) The corridor links a substantial percentage of the State’s population (and U.S. population).
3) The transportation system and most of the required assets are already in place.
4) Recreation is an important aspect of the corridor - it is important to provide services to
recreational users. Connecting trails, improving canal infrastructure, and providing better
access to recreational areas would strengthen communities, enhance tourism, and help
stimulate the corridor’s and the State’s economy.
5) Goods movement – future economic development requires consideration of exporting goods,
not just considering them as a pass-through in the corridor.
Several interactive exercises were conducted to receive input on attendees views of the main economic
drivers within the corridor (now and in the future), how might they change, the transportation needs of
these economic drivers, and other more general strengths and weaknesses. The following sections
present the results of these exercises.
Final – Nov 1 Page 5
Economic Development and Transportation Discussion
This exercise was done in steps:
1) Reviewing the list of key economic drivers in the corridor, adding any missing elements;
2) Rating their relative potential for growth or importance within the corridor; and
3) Identifying what these specific sectors need from the transportation system. The transportation
needs discussion focused on the characteristics (not the specific transportation mode) of the
transportation system needed to support these industries.
Table 2 is a summary of the input received. Participants identified three additional existing economic
drivers in the corridor – agriculture, transportation and natural resources. Stakeholders rated the
existing economic drivers in terms of relative potential for growth; results were that professional/
scientific/technical services, educational services, transportation, natural resources, and tourism had
higher potential for growth than other sectors. Some key distinguishing characteristics of the
transportation systems serving these sectors should be:
Availability of public transportation that is seamless (good connections between systems),
provides sufficient services (locations, frequencies, hours of operation), and has amenities (e.g.
wifi, instantaneous service timetable changes/notification boards)
Well-maintained bridges and highways (i.e., state of good repair)
Convenience for all (i.e. serving major business centers) but especially user-friendly for visitors
and tourists
Cost-effectiveness
Compatibility with land uses
After assessing existing business sectors, the group focused on emerging industries. While the group did
not feel comfortable assessing the growth potential for materials and materials processing, they did feel
that the other four groups identified (see Table 2) had good potential for growth in the corridor. It was
clearly indicated that the high value, sensitive products of electronics and imaging industries require a
“smooth ride” and therefore roads and bridges that are in good repair. All the emerging industries
share common needs such as being able to ship/receive goods and to attract employees by having a
high quality of life.
The discussion had a general overarching theme that there must be a connected, well-maintained,
reliable, safe, multimodal system that supports:
1. The access and movement needs of the industries that bring the jobs to the area;
2. The livability of the communities that make future employees want to call the area home; and
3. The livability/cultural interests of the area that make visitors want to come.
How This Information Will Be Used – As the study moves forward, this information will be used to help:
Inform the selection of strategy types (e.g., accessibility, state of good repair, information
systems, connectivity improvements) that would respond to corridor needs; and
Final – Nov 1 Page 6
Provide a framework for prioritizing strategies/improvements based on the number of sectors
served and the sectors’ potential for growth.
Text in bold italics was input received at the meeting
Industries Sectors
Relative Potential
for Growth
(1=small and
3=large)
- reliability - cost-effective - energy efficiency - capacity
- accessibility - agility
(redundancy)
- connectivity of modes - regulatory
- convenience - speed
(commuting)
- reliability - healthy (i.e.,
transit, walking,
biking, etc)
- user friendly - cost-effective - connectivity of modes - awareness
Tourism 2+
- complete
systems
- transparency
(easy to use for
visitor)
- multimodal access - marketing
support (awareness
of transportation
network before
visitors come)
- public
transportation
- seamlessness of
system
- good roads/bridges/
maintenance
- congestion
mediation
- communication/
info (ITS)
- amenities on
public
transportation
- air access for upstate
cities
- mobility
Construction 2-1
- infrastructure to
move goods
- state of good
repair
- system that
accommodates all
types of modes
- reliability
Wholesale and retail trade 2- throughput - efficient
intermodal
- cost-effective - favorable
regulatory system
Agriculture 2- ability to export
product
- federal funds - security - corridor-based
advocate and
marketing campaign
- high speed rail
- access - safety - compatibility with
land uses
- tax parity with
adjacent regions
Natural resources (energy,
including pipelines)
2-3
Electronics and imaging 2-3
Common to All
Advanced manufacturing 3 - goods movement issue
Industrial machinery 3 - people issue in terms of quality of life/recruiting
Biomedical and medical devices 3 - security policy issues
- agility of system/customized solutions for each
- seasonality issues (esp. related to canal usage)
- access
Emer
gin
g In
du
stri
es
Materials and materials
processing no response
Transportation Needs (general characteristics or policy issues)
Table 2: Economic Development and Transportation Exercise
Educational services 2-3
3Professional, scientific,
technical services
- compatibility with and flexibility to accommodate local
regulations (e.g., weight limits on bridges)
2-3Transportation
- policy position on natural gas
drilling
roads/bridges in state of good repair
Exis
tin
g Ec
on
om
ic D
rive
rs
Manufacturing 2
- transportation sector to work with energy
needs (e.g. green fleets)
- state of good repair of infrastructure
Final – Nov 1 Page 7
Overall SWOT Analysis
The participants were asked to review an initial listing of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats, and add to it, particularly based on the conversation of transportation needs of key economic
drivers. Table 3 shows the initial list and the additional input received from the stakeholders.
Text in bold italics was input received at the meeting
The strength discussion indicated that there is strong pride in the history of the area as well as in current
achievements in education and planning in the regions. In essence, the area has the workforce and the
community assets to attract employers. The different components of a multimodal system (i.e., road,
air, rail, water, and bikeways) are present (as indicated in the strength column) but there is the need to
maintain them and better connect them (as indicated by the weaknesses of age and condition of
infrastructure and lengthy travel times from one end of the corridor to another, especially by non-
automobile modes). The discussion indicated as many opportunities as weaknesses, supporting the idea
that enhancing the present transportation system through improved connectivity and maintenance is
among the greatest transportation need of the area.
Several of the identified threats, such as taxes, politics, and legal reform, are outside the control of
transportation planners and providers. The threat of climate change comes in several forms – the actual
impact of climate change on the infrastructure (e.g., potential for more flooding) or the increased
governmental regulations and costs to address climate change issues.
How This Information Will Be Used – One of the next steps in the study process is to determine how the
transportation needs might change given varying assumptions about the future. The strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats will be used to define potential scenarios, such as:
Strength Opportunity
Diversified regional economy Tourism
Multimodal transportation network Growth in technology sectors
Educated workforce Border issues - connectivity to markets
Experienced workforce Shifting global trade patterns
History and pride of place Staycations (tourist in own town)
Work on coordinated planning Interest of younger generations for other modes/businesses
Gateway area
Weakness Threat
Declining population Increasing competition and higher costs
Lagging job growth Funding for economic development and transportation
Aging of the population and lack of diversity of population Uncertainty of federal legislation/funding
Age and condition of infrastructure Climate change
Lengthy trip from one end of corridor to another Politics
Number of local governments Outmigration
Tax situation
Inadequate planning
Legal reform that results in increased liability or losses
Table 3: SWOT Input
Final – Nov 1 Page 8
Without adequate funding to maintain road and bridge infrastructure, what will future
conditions be like? Which economic drivers will be most impacted as a result?
As transportation costs increase (i.e., fuel costs, tolls), which sectors will be most affected? Are
there viable transportation alternatives that can help support the economic competitiveness of
the region?
How might climate change impact the various transportation modes and therefore the
economic drivers?
Review of CPAC Questionnaire
Prior to the meeting, CPAC members were provided a link to an on-line survey that allowed them to
identify strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/threats and other relevant issues. An overall summary
from the limited number of responses received was shown and reviewed by the group. That summary
indicated four general themes for transportation:
1. Support job growth
2. Enhance access to historic and cultural assets
3. Provide transportation options that promote healthy, livable communities
4. Provide a realizable, accessible system that will allow the region to capitalize on its geographic
location
The participants agreed that this summary echoed the overall themes of the meeting exercises and discussions. Mapping Exercise Participants were asked to make comments on corridor-wide or specific geographic issues using sticky
dots, comment cards, and enlarged maps of the corridor. Table 4 is a summary of the comments
received. These comments echoed the concerns heard earlier for supporting economic development as
well as livable communities and tourism. Subsequent meetings will look into these issues in order to
develop strategies and then specific projects to support the corridor vision.
Conclusions The participants reconvened after the mapping exercise to receive final comments/instructions before
departing. These included:
Next meeting will be in early 2011
Meeting information will be available through a SharePoint site (attendees will be provided with
access information via e-mail)
Reminder to please fill out the CPAC questionnaire if they had not done so previously
(http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NMBTQYG)
Visit the web site (www.nysdot.gov/mohawk-erie-study)
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NMBTQYGhttp://www.nysdot.gov/mohawk-erie-study
Final – Nov 1 Page 9
The meeting concluded at approximately 3:40 p.m. Next Steps Similar meetings are being conducted with each of the four Regional Project Advisory Committees
(RPACs). The meetings are scheduled as follows:
Western NY RPAC Monday, November 8
Genesee/Finger Lakes RPAC Tuesday, November 9
Central NY/Mohawk Valley RPAC Wednesday, November 10
Capital District/Eastern NY RPAC Friday, November 12
Final – Nov 1 Page 10
RPAC Area CommentInvesting in freight capacity for future trade growth would provide: 1) competitive
business logistic advantage; 2) green, fuel-efficient mode; 3) less highway
congestion; and 4) improved community quality of life through less truck traffic and
greener transport modesImproving freight rail capacity helps facilitate community safety and security by
taking dangerous commodities off congested highways and providing the safest
mode of surface transportation for freight. Perhaps the committee should consider
the cost vs. benefits of rail vs. highway transport. The average 1-mile freight train
takes 280 trucks off the roads.
Expand rail capacity in Empire and Adirondack Corridors to meet 25% market share
called for in NYS Rail Plan as well as development of passenger rail
Assisting freight railroads in bringing train lines to a state of good repair and then
maintain level to serve existing and new markets
Increase NYS Canalway freight utilization
Develop new rail facilities (yards, intermodal points) to permit economic growth
throughout the upstate region
Develop a multimodal system that increases critical redundancies in the case of one
mode failing for any reason
Need a governance structure that improves and streamlines decision making process
and eliminates barriers
There are numerous gaps in the Canalway Trail that must be closed for the trail to
have maximum tourism potential with both national and international appeal. A
complete trail system with easy local access also provides residents with means to be
physically active and improve mental and physical health
There is opportunity for use of technology across modes
Interchange 24 on I-90 is busiest on the Thruway and is a key access point for the
region - must maintain operations and limit congestion
I-87 rush hour congestion
Critical break in the Canalway Trail near Green Island
Schenectady Double tracking of rail
No through route for Canalway Trail through Syracuse
BRT-HSR would reduce dwell time and improve mobility and improve access for
people and goods
Lack of mode interconnectivity and coordination
Utica Beautiful historic downtown train station that could use more investment
Note the Marcellus Shale development site near I-88
Issue of heavy truck traffic through village of Fonda
There is an overbuilt road system in downtown Little Falls
Upgrade grade crossings to accommodate growth in freight traffic of HSR
Need extension of the Genesee Valley Greenway
Peace Bridge
Enhance border crossing processing at Canadian border for freight and passenger
service
Mainline congestion in Buffalo at Interchanges 49-53
Reverse corridor public transit services
I-290/I-90 identified by FHWA as #1 bottleneck in the country for trucks
Distance between airport and downtown is a barrier? Public transportation options
easily accessible at al hours?
Need Albany-Buffalo same day round trip transport
Area is among the top 3 in the state for multiplicity of governmental units
Niagara Falls Border issues
Portageville Bridge replacement on NS Southern Tier Corridor - bridge is 135 years old
and restricts capacity in terms of weight per car and speed of freight traversing bridge
Indian Nations tax dispute with NYS
Buffalo
Other
Corridor-wide or non-site specific
Table 4: Mapping Exercise Comments
Western NY
Capital District/Eastern NYAlbany/Colonie
Syracuse
Other
Central NY/Mohawk Valley
RochesterGenesee/Finger Lakes
Final – Nov 1 Page 11
Slide 1
Mohawk-Erie Multimodal
Transportation Corridor Study
Corridor-Wide
Project Advisory Committee
September 15, 2010
Slide 5 Corridor-wide Project
Advisory Committee Role
• Provide input and guidance based onyour knowledge and expertise
• Assess issues and opportunities froma corridor perspective
• Help develop a “real world” implementation strategy
Slide 2 Welcome and
Introductions
• Announcements – Linda Carpenter• Committee Introductions• Welcome – Lynn Weiskopf, NYSDOT
Anthony Longe, NYSTA
Slide 6 Why the Corridor is
Important?
• Important Corridor for intra-state andinterstate transportation
• Vital for freight and trade• International connections via rail, water,air, and highway
• Transportation assets planned, owned, &operated by range of organizations
Slide 3
3
Slide 7 Global Perspective
• Increasing volumes into east coast ports
• 2008 over 25% of U.S. GDP wasinternational trade
• In 5 years BIC accounts for 25% worldGDP, U.S. exports to them increased 121% from 2003 - 2008
• U.S. world’s leading manufacturer, $3.9trillion in 2008
Slide 4 Purpose of Study
• Understanding future transportation needs tosupport economic development and livable communities
• Vision for Corridor, role of transportation inachieving that vision
• Real implementation addressing transportation challenges within fiscal realities
• Identify investments, actions, policies making bestuse of scarce resources
Slide 8 Corridor-Wide SWOT
Analysis
Strengths:• Diverse regional economy• Multimodal transportation networks• Educational resources• Growth in exports• Entrepreneurship• Educated workforce
Final – Nov 1 Page 12
Slide 9 SWOT Findings
Industry 2008 Employment % of Total
Government 428,137 17.1%
Health & Social 327,484 13.1%
Retail Trade 287,541 11.5%
Prof Science, Tech 177,428 7.1%
Food & Lodging 162,039 6.5%
Construction 127,194 5.1%
Admn & Support 104,544 4.2%
Wholesale Trade 83,045 3.3%
Ed Services 81,024 3.2%
Repair, Maintain 66,663 2.7%
Slide 13 SWOT Findings
2009 Industry Announcements Mohawk-Erie Region•Global Foundries - $4.2 billion, 1,400 jobs•GE Transportation - $150 million, 350 jobs•Globe Specialty - $60 million, 500 jobs•GM - $400 million - 713 jobs•GE Energy - $39 million, 500 jobs
Slide 10 Corridor-Wide SWOT
Analysis - Strengths
• Multimodal transportation networks• Transportation mode choice for goods and
people
• Educational resources• 20 Research Centers, 59 Colleges and
Universities
Slide 14 SWOT Findings
Weaknesses• Declining population
• Corridor population declined 2% 1970to 2008
• MSA population within Corridor declined 2% non-MSA counties saw no population change
• U.S. population growth rate – 48% 1970 to 2008
Slide 11 SWOT Findings
Growth in Corridor Exports• In 2008 $21.8 billion in exports from Mohawk-
Erie metro areas supporting 160,000 jobs• Export industries – chemical manufacturing,
machinery manufacturing, transportation equipment, computers and electronics
• Corridor region exports a higher % of goods to BIC nations than average of other largemetro areas
Slide 15 SWOT Findings
Weaknesses: Lagging Job Growth
% change1980 - 1990
% change1990 - 2000
% change2000-2008
% change1970 - 2008
Total Corridor 16.0% 4.8% 0.7% 33.7%
Corridor MSA 16.9% 4.6% 0.6% 34.1%
Non MSA Co. 9.8% 6.6% 1.7% 30.9%
New York 13.9% 6.5% 3.6% 28.0%
USA 22.0% 19.6% 8.3% 97.9%
Slide 12 SWOT Findings - Strengths
Educated Workforce• In large metro areas, Buffalo ranks 2nd
population over 25 with associates degree• Corridor metro areas, higher % (56.2 – 51.2)18 to 24 enrolled in higher educationcompared to 40.9% nationally
Entrepreneurship• Legacy of innovation• State ranks 19th in Indexof Entrepreneurial Activity
Slide 16 SWOT Findings
Weaknesses• Condition and Age of Infrastructure
• 37% NYS bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete
• 1/3 of state highway system has a fairor poor surface condition
• Multimodal Connectivity• Limited coordination between modes
Final – Nov 1 Page 13
Slide 17 SWOT Findings
Opportunities:• Build on new technologies, green
industries • Growth in exports • Value of multimodal connections• Tourism
Slide 21 Questionnaire Summary
• Support job growth• Enhance historic and cultural assets• Promote healthy, livable communities• Capitalizing on geographic location• What else?
Slide 18 SWOT Findings
Threats:• Increased global competition, high
business costs• Funding for transportation and economicdevelopment
Slide 22 Next Steps
• How to stay in touchSharePointWebsite
• Other people who should beinvolved in this
• Complete Questionnaire• Next meeting in early 2011
Slide 19
Slide 23
Mohawk-Erie Study
Website
www.NYSDOT.gov/mohawk-erie-study
Slide 20
Recommended