mohawk-erie multimodal transportation corridor …...january 2011 page 1 mohawk-erie multimodal...
TRANSCRIPT
January 2011 Page 1
Mohawk-Erie Multimodal Transportation Corridor Study
Meeting Summary
Central NY-Mohawk Valley Regional Project Advisory Committee
(RPAC) Meeting
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
1 p.m. – 4 p.m.
Jervis Public Library, Rome, NY
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 a real world action plan 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.
November 10, 2010 RPAC Meeting Purpose, Agenda and Attendees
The purpose of this first meeting of the Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC was to provide key
stakeholders with information about the study process, initiate the dialogue on how transportation
can support economic development goals, and provide an opportunity for attendees to comment on
modal profile maps displayed at the meeting. Several 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 24 participants at the meeting (see Table 1).
January 2011 Page 2
January 2011 Page 3
Table 1: November 10, 2010 Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC Attendance List
Status Title First Last Company Title Company
Member Mr. David Bottar Executive Director Central New York Regional Planning & Development Board
Alternate Mr. Mario Colone Principal Transportation Planner Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council
Member Ms. Dana Crisino Senior Planner City of Utica Urban and Economic Development
Member Mr. James Fayle Regional Director Central New York Region Empire State Development
Member Ms. Maureen Fellows Director of Government Relations and Institutional Planning
State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Member Mr. Carl Ford Regional Director New York State Department of Transportation Region 3
Member Mr. Tim Frasier Canal Engineer New York State Canal Corporation
Member Mr. Jeffrey Hopson GIS Specialist Syracuse Hancock International Airport
Member Mr. Richard Landerkin Director of Planning CENTRO
Member Mr. Harry Miller Program Manager Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study
Alternate Ms. Shelly Perrin Logistics Director Rock-Tenn
Member Mr. Jim Piccola New York State Department of Transportation
Alternate Mr. Mark Reynolds Sr. Vice President Mohawk Valley EDGE
Member Mr. Mike Smith Finger Lakes Railroad
Alternate Mr. John Stemen Director of Community Relations
District Office of Assemblywoman RoAnn M. Destito, Utica
Member Mr. Kenneth Tompkins Regional Director Mohawk Valley Regional Empire State Development
Project Team Ms. Lynn Weiskopf Mohawk-Erie Project Director New York State Department of Transportation
Project Team Mr. David Rosenberg Mohawk-Erie Project Manager New York State Department of Transportation
Project Team Mr. Anthony Longe Mohawk-Erie Project Manager New York State Thruway Authority
Project Team Ms. Melissa Zeigler Project Manager Wilbur Smith Associates
Project Team Ms. Linda Carpenter Public Outreach Coordinator Wilbur Smith Associates
Project Team Mr. Jim Levy Deputy Project Manager Wilbur Smith Associates
Project Team Ms. Carol Gould Public Outreach Program and Land Use Task Leader
Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.
Steering Committee Attendee
Mr. John Bien New York State Thruway Authority
January 2011 Page 4
How was the Meeting Rated by Participants?
Comment cards were provided to participants to rate the meeting performance. A total of 14 were
returned. In general, the overall meeting was well received (average 8.9 out of 10). Some
comments received included:
Need bigger room next time
Good to bring together the Mohawk Valley and Central New York areas for different local
perspectives
Should add an agricultural representative
Good start; if this study can agree on an understanding of the overall growth picture and
what is needed, that would be great.
5
4
3
2
1
5 7 8 9 10
Clarity of Objectives
dist
ribu
tion
of
14
resp
onse
s
rece
ived
s cores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent
avg=8.6
6
5
4
3
2
1
5 8 9 10
scores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent
Achievement of Objectives
dist
ribu
tion
of
13
resp
onse
s
rece
ived
avg=8.3
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
5 8 9 10
dist
ribu
tion
of
14
resp
onse
s
rece
ived
Opportunity to Provide Input, Quality of Exercises
scores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent
avg=8.9
January 2011 Page 5
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 study.
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:
• Growth in some major industry sectors
• Multimodal transportation networks
• Educational resources
• Growth in exports • Educated workforce
Weaknesses: • Declining population • Lagging job growth • Condition and age of
infrastructure • Multimodal
connectivity
Opportunities:
• Build on new technology businesses
• Continued growth in exports
• Value of multimodal connections
Threats: Increased
competitiveness and higher transportation costs
• Higher transportation costs compared to other east coast states
• Funding for transportation and economic development
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, and the transportation
needs of these economic drivers. The following sections present the results of these exercises.
Overall SWOT Analysis
The participants were asked to review an initial listing of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats, and add to it. Table 2 shows the initial list and the additional input received from the
stakeholders.
The discussion on the SWOT analysis included the following points:
1. Location of the corridor and proximity/access to Canada are strengths.
2. Access in general – within a day’s drive to many markets.
3. Abundant water resources for both industrial needs and for recreation are an asset.
4. The research capabilities of the higher education institutions are an asset.
5. As the region sits at the nexus of the upstate power grid, there is an abundant supply of energy.
6. The region is land rich with sites available for development.
January 2011 Page 6
7. The development of Marcellus Shale is an opportunity for the region as is the development of
alternative fuels.
8. A threat to growth is the “not in my backyard” attitude that can result in sprawl.
Text in bold italics was input received at the meeting
Economic Development and Transportation Discussion
This exercise was conducted in three steps:
1) Reviewing the list of key economic drivers in the corridor, adding any missing elements;
2) 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; and
3) Asking how participants would spend a blank check ($500m was used as a proxy for those who
needed an amount) to help the region’s economy in general, and then specifically on
transportation.
Table 3 is a summary of the input received on specific industry sector needs. Some key distinguishing
characteristics of the transportation systems serving these sectors, as identified by stakeholders:
More non-auto mode choice(s) with improved connectivity
Balance of freight and passenger rail use – without jeopardizing either
Concentrated development to limit sprawl and allow for viability of non-auto modes
Strength Opportunity
Growth in some major industry sectors Build on new technology businesses
Multimodal transportation networks Continued growth in exports
Educational resources (and research capabilities) Value of multimodal connections
Research capabilities – especially for health care Marcellus Shale – build on alternative fuel options
Growth in exports Syracuse Airport - could accommodate freight traffic
Educated workforce
Access to water
Land rich – many opportunity sites for development
Strategic location to markets, including Canada
Abundant supply of electricity (at nexus of NYS system)
Access to capital
Weakness Threat
Declining population Increased competitiveness and higher costs
Lagging job growth Higher transportation costs compared to other east coast states
Condition and age of infrastructure Funding for transportation and economic development
Multimodal connectivity Land Use NIMBY (not in my back yard) as it relates to siting of
transportation infrastructure – i.e. impacts of sprawl
Table 2: Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC SWOT Input
January 2011 Page 7
Text in bold italics was input received at the meeting
Table 4 summarizes the input received on how to invest to support the region’s economy. In general,
the region has a good highway system but due to the spread out nature of much of the population/land
use, transit is less viable. The number of responses that indicated transportation investment as
important even when the money did not have to be spent on transportation shows the consensus of the
critical role of transportation in supporting regional economic development.
Business Sectors Transportation Needs (general characteristics or policy issues)
Travel and tourism
Manufacturing
Professional, scientific
and technical services
Retail and wholesale
trade
Construction
Distribution centers
Agriculture, dairy, and
forestry
Banking and finance
In general
Bio-science and
pharmaceuticals
Digital and electronic
devices
Advanced manufacturing
Logistics
Environmental systems
Diagnostics and medical
devices
Marcellus shale
extraction
Table 3: Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC Economic Development and Transportation Exercise
Need good and reliable highway system; there is transit-funding shortage yet have
increased demand, especially as fuel prices rise - $4 per gallon seems to be tipping point; low-
density land use with sprawl is concern/issue
Eme
rgin
g In
du
stri
es
Need efficiency in the system to make the most of fiscal resources; both highway and rail
access essential to manufacturing transport; need to balance rail for freight with rail for
commuters
More/better transit to the Carousel Center (Mall in Syracuse) needed
Additional low-cost carrier to/from Hancock/Syracuse Airport - would support tourism;
Syracuse airport is tourist based
Opportunity for new technology/Nano-technology; highway essential to travel to work-
challenging environment for commuter transit- currently commuter access to highway is
good - not constrained
Ability to get materials to markets important. More cooperation needed from railroads.
Cooperation/coordination between modes is lacking and can be a barrier to connectivity
No specific needs were identified during the meeting; most of these emerging industries
are goods-oriented so they will have the same needs as the manufacturing sector identified
above. The transportation needs to attract employees in these sectors will be the same as
for the existing professional/scientific and technical services
Distribution centers are becoming more important - e.g. Wal-Mart/Target; need good
freight transportation system; efficiency and congestion issues on rail – future concern/need
Smart Growth land use policy is important - it would be supportive of sound economic
growth; help to sustain agriculture; but reliable energy sources to support agriculture are a
concern
Workers access to jobs is an issue for all industries. Lack of multi-modal transportation
options for workers is an issue – particularly low-income in rural areas
Exis
tin
g Ec
on
om
ic D
rive
rs
January 2011 Page 8
The discussion had a general overarching theme that for the Central NY-Mohawk Valley area:
1. There is a good highway system but the region’s density/land use make alternative modes less
viable except in the densest urban areas.
2. Need to balance the importance of freight rail operations with improved passenger rail – need
to provide for both.
3. Urban sprawl is a concern.
4. Maintenance of existing infrastructure is a priority.
How This Information Will Be Used – As the study moves forward, the information from this meeting will
be used to help:
Assist in the development of varying assumptions about the future and thinking about the
impacts of these future scenarios on various economic sectors – with a focus on how this would
affect future transportation needs;
Provide a framework for evaluating strategies/improvements across modal sectors; and
Inform the selection of strategy types (e.g., state of good repair, connectivity improvements,
targeted capacity, information systems, regulatory or legal changes) that would respond to
corridor needs.
Examples of future scenarios may include:
How will economic and transportation choices be affected if resources are limited or potentially
inadequate to maintain road and bridge infrastructure?
How will such choices vary under changing conditions (e.g., development of the Marcellus
Shale? Development of alternative energy? Significant increases in fuel/travel costs? If
Investments to Support Regional Economy Transportation Investments to Support Regional Economy
I-81 Viaduct improvements in downtown Syracuse I-81 Viaduct improvements in downtown Syracuse
Job creation/development Rail infrastructure - both passenger and freight
Nano technologyPreserve/stabilize current infrastructure (state of good
repair - especially for highways)
Rail infrastructure Erie Canal dredging and intermodal connections
Preserve/stabilize current infrastructure Connectivity
Infrastructure for business - water, sewer, power
grid, broadbandLow cost air carrier
Development in villagesMore non-auto transport - improved connectivity to
airport, universities
Quality of life Integrate trails
Address sprawl Prioritize investment - what can we afford
Manufacturing and tourism campaigns/marketing
central NY as investment grows
Table 4: Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC Investment Suggestions
January 2011 Page 9
additional technologies were to become available? If additional resources are available? If
significant greenhouse gas reductions are mandated? )
The information received from stakeholders will help us understand which sectors will be most affected,
and what viable transportation alternatives would or could be available to support the economic
competitiveness of the region.
Review of RPAC Questionnaire
Prior to the meeting, RPAC 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 of
how important specific transportation factors were to questionnaire respondents was reviewed with the
group. Table 5 indicates the summary for all four RPACs.
Table 5: RPAC Questionnaire Summary – Critical Transportation Issues
Bottlenecks and congestion
Safety hot spots
Major maintenance issues
Weather-related issues
Lack of access to highways
Lack of access to freight rail
Lack of access to passenger rail
Lack of access to regional transit
Lack of access to air modes
Lack of access to water modes
Lack/shortage of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and networks
Sprawl development
o
+
+
o
+
+
o
_
o
o o
o
_
_
+
+
o
o
significant
moderately significant
_moderate
minimally moderate
minimal
Capital District/
Eastern NY
Central NY/ Mohawk Valley
Genesee/ Finger Lakes
Western NY
Transportation Issue
+
_
+
+
o
o
o
_
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
_
+
+
o
o
o
o
_
+
+
+
o
o
+
o
_
_
+
_
o
+
+
o
+
+
o
_
o
o o
o
_
_
Number of respondents:Capital District/Eastern NY: 9Central NY/Mohawk Valley: 6
Genesee/Finger Lakes: 8Western NY: 9
January 2011 Page 10
Mapping Exercise Participants were asked to make comments on specific corridor issues using sticky dots, comment cards,
and enlarged maps of the corridor. Table 6 is a summary of the comments received. These comments
supported many of the issues noted in earlier discussions by noting specific examples for improvements.
For example, the opportunity to barge agriculture goods to New York City markets, Port of Oswego
improvements, double tracking rail, expansion of rail yards, and specific trail connection improvements
all point to non-auto oriented improvements. However, some specific enhancements to the highway
system were noted as well including I-81/Rt 90 interchange improvements and north-south arterial in
Utica area among others.
Area Mode Comment
Could support economic development in municipal area (for example: Syracuse Inner Harbor, Utica Harbor, other
village development)
Could be used for recreation including trails
could be used for freight transport with intermodal connections
Multi-modal-
energy
The study should consider implementing renewable energy and sustainable practiced no matter whet direction the
study takes; use of renewable fuels and alternative fuels could be encouraged
Multi-modal-
agriculture
Agriculture and dairy industries in NY are in decline but have potential to rebound. Better transportation to bring
locally grown and NYS foods to large NYC markets on a timely basis is key. There should be a lower cost, efficient and
reliable way to invigorate NY agriculture and bring important products to a willing market
Land use
Land use is important. Considering the environmental impact of recommendations is also important. There can be a
balance.
Highway/rail Oswego port - improve rail and road access at port to increase activity
Port Port of Oswego improvements
Rome Multi-modal Consider needs of Rome business park
Rome Air Airport, Oneida County - continue investments in terminal, customs, hanger facilities in their long range plan
I-81/I-90 interchange congestion
I-81 city of Syracuse viaduct improvements
I-81/I-90 interchange - ensure the design of this does not negatively impact truck transport
Interstate 81 through Syracuse. How will replacement impact community
Rail Dewitt freight yard needs direct connection to I-90
Intermodal Expansion of CSX rail yard or property in close proximity
Airport - increase commercial service with low cost carrier
Need low cost carrier at Syracuse Airport
North of
Syracuse Site access Local/regional desire to develop site as business park
Convert Rt 12 arterial to surface road with traffic circles, walkways, bike paths, pedestrian bridges, neighborhood
linkages
Lack of limited access multi-lane highway through Utica
Need for north-south arterial
Improvements needed on Rtes 5, 8 and 12
Utica needs a rail to truck multimodal node - also consider future access to canal
Improvement to Union Station passenger/freight yard
Frequent delays of passenger trains from Utica to New York City
Should have direct rail manufacturing sites that eliminate use of highway connections to move goods
Trail Final connection of the bike trail thru NYS - this is the missing link to connect a recreational resource across the state
High speed EZ Pass for URE
I-84--extend NYS840 from its NW terminus to NYS 233 (along Sutliff-Judd Rd corridor)
High speed EZ Pass at NY 49 and I-90 (west of Utica exit 31)
Move Thruway Exit 32 (Westmoreland) east to point where Judd Road (840) crosses Thruway or at least put EZ pass
exit at Judd/840
Trail Lack of connections to recreational resources both north and south of the highway resources
South of Utica Highway Lack of north-south four-lane highway connecting the North Country through Utica to the southern tier
East of Utica Trail Need for ped/bike in Mohawk area
Capital area Rail Double track Empire Corridor Schenectady to Albany
Utica
Highway
Intermodal
Rail
West of UticaHighway
Table 6: Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC Mapping Exercise Comments
Areawide
Canal
Oswego
Syracuse
Highway
Air
January 2011 Page 11
Conclusions and Next Steps
The participants reconvened after the mapping exercise to receive final comments/instructions before
departing. These included:
Next meeting will be in Spring 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 RPAC questionnaire if they had not done so previously
(www.surveymonkey.com/s/N56P9YT)
Visit the web site (www.nysdot.gov/mohawk-erie-study)
January 2011 Page 12
Slide 1
Mohawk-Erie Multimodal
Transportation Corridor Study
Central-Mohawk Valley Region
Project Advisory Committee
November 10, 2010
Slide
5 Objective of This
Meeting
• To identify what the key existing andemerging businesses are in theregion
• What are their transportation needs
Slide
2 Welcome and
Introductions
• Announcements – Linda Carpenter• Committee Introductions• Welcome – Lynn Weiskopf, NYSDOT
Anthony Longe, NYSTA• Presentation – WSA Team
Slide
6 Regional Project Advisory
Committee Role
• Provide input and guidance based on
your knowledge and expertise• Assess issues and opportunities from
a regional perspective• Help develop a “real world”
implementation plan
Slide
3
3
Slide
7 Why the Corridor is
Important?• Important Corridor for intra-state and
interstate transportation• Vital for freight and trade• International connections via rail, water,air, and highway
• Transportation assets planned, owned, &operated by range of organizations
• Tourism and recreation
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 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
January 2011 Page 13
Slide
9 Central-Mohawk Valley
SWOT Analysis
Strengths:• Growth in some major industry sectors• Multimodal transportation networks• Educational resources• Growth in exports• Educated workforce
Slide
11 SWOT Findings
Opportunities:• Build on new technology businesses • Continued growth in exports • Value of multimodal connections
Slide
10 SWOT Findings
Weaknesses:• Declining population
• Lagging job growth• Condition and age of infrastructure• Multimodal connectivity
Slide
12 SWOT Findings
Threats:• Increased competitiveness and higher
costs• Higher transportation costs compared to
other east coast states• Funding for transportation and economicdevelopment
Slide
13
January 2011 Page 14
Slide
14
Slide
15
Bottlenecks and congestion
Safety hot spots
Major maintenance issues
Weather-related issues
Lack of access to highways
Lack of access to freight rail
Lack of access to passenger rail
Lack of access to regional transit
Lack of access to air modes
Lack of access to water modes
Lack/shortage of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and networks
Sprawl development
o
+
+
o
+
+
o
_
o
o o
o
_
_
+
+
o
o
significant
moderately significant
_moderate
minimally moderate
minimal
Capital District/
Eastern NY
Central NY/ Mohawk Valley
Genesee/ Finger Lakes
Western NY
Transportation Issue
+
_
+
+
o
o
o
_
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
_
+
+
o
o
o
o
_
+
+
+
o
o
+
o
_
_
+
_
o
+
+
o
+
+
o
_
o
o o
o
_
_
January 2011 Page 15
Slide
16 Next Steps
• How to stay in touchSharePointWebsite
• Other people who should beinvolved in this study
• Complete Questionnaire• Next meeting in early 2011
Slide
17 Mohawk-Erie Study
Website
www.NYSDOT.gov/mohawk-erie-study