mohawk-erie multimodal transportation corridor study€¦ · modal profile maps displayed at the...
TRANSCRIPT
January 2011 Page 1
Mohawk-Erie Multimodal Transportation Corridor Study
Meeting Summary
Capital District-Eastern NY Regional Project Advisory Committee
(RPAC) Meeting
Friday, November 12, 2010
9 a.m. – 12 noon
NYSDOT District Office, 328 State Street, Schenectady, 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 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 12, 2010 RPAC Meeting Purpose, Agenda and Attendees
The purpose of this first meeting of the Capital District–Eastern NY 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 26 participants at the meeting (see Table 1).
January 2011 Page 2
January 2011 Page 3
Table 1: November 12, 2010 Capital District-Eastern NY RPAC Attendance List
Status Title First Last Title Company
Member Mr. James Angus VP Community Economic Development
Saratoga Economic Development Corporation
Alternate Mr. Robert S. Cherry, PE Director, Transportation Planning
New York State Department of Transportation
Member Mr. Art Dutcher 3rd Party Logistics - Distribution Unlimited
Galesi Group
Alternate Mr. Todd Fabozzi Capital District Regional Planning Council
Alternate Ms. Deborah Flynn Center for Economic Growth Tech
Valley
Member Mr. Richard Hendrick General Manager Port of Albany
Member Mr. David Jukins Deputy Director Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC MPO)
Alternate Ms. Susan Olsen New York State Department of Transportation
Alternate Mr. Christopher O'Neill CDTC
Member Mr. Phil Serafino Capital Program Manager
New York State Thruway Authority
Alternate Mr. Chuck Steiner Schenectady Chamber of Commerce
Member Mr. Steven Sweeney Canal Engineer New York State Canal Corporation
Alternate Ms. Jennifer Thorne Projects Manager Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA)
Alternate Mr. Nick Viggiani Aide Congressman Paul Tonko's Office
Alternate Mr. Alan Warog New York State Department of Transportation
Alternate Mr. Arnie Will Capital Region 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.
Project Team
Mr. Sam Eisenbeiser Community and Land Use Planner
Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.
Steering Committee Attendee
Mr. John Bien New York State Thruway Authority
Other Attendee
Ms. Elizabeth Novak 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 8 were
returned. In general, the overall meeting was well received (average 8.6 out of 10), but there was
room for improvement on clarity of meeting objectives. Some comments received included:
“Good initial meeting”
“This study has to identify a hard-hitting action plan.”
“The facilitators did a great job of handling 'diverse' discussion”
“If possible, a narrower agenda due to number of participants”
“Need support of the elected officials, state, city, county and town along corridor as well as
trucking industry, Amtrak, freight and economic development”
4
3
2
1
5 7 8 9 10
Clarity of Objectives
dist
ribu
tion
of
8
resp
onse
s
rece
ived
s cores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent
avg=8.1
4
3
2
1
5 7 8 9 10
Achievement of Objectives
dist
ribu
tion
of
7
resp
onse
s
rece
ived
s cores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent
avg=8.4
5
4
3
2
1
4 8 9 10
dist
ribu
tion
of
8
resp
onse
s
rece
ived
Opportunity to Provide Input, Quality of Exercises
scores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent
avg=8.6
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:
• Multimodal transportation networks
• Educational resources • Growth in exports • Educated workforce
Weaknesses:
• Dependence on government employment
• Higher business and living costs
• Condition and age of infrastructure
• Multimodal connectivity
Opportunities:
• Growth in new technology • Continued growth in
exports • Value of multimodal
connections • Increased cooperation on
range of issues
Threats: Loss of manufacturing jobs Sprawl and related costs 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 centered on the following points:
1. The area has access to many recreational activities, but the quality of urban life for younger
generations is a weakness.
2. Regional cooperation is needed to guide economic development so that municipalities are not
competing with one another with adverse results. Home rule continues to make this difficult.
3. The business culture has changed to just-in-time inventory management, making shipping all the
more critical to the economy.
January 2011 Page 6
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) The original exercise was to indicate what type of investment would best support economic
development in the area, and if the reply was not a transportation investment, attendees were
asked how they would invest in transportation. The group did not want to separate the replies,
so the exercise focused in general on what type of investments would best support the
economic growth of the region.
Table 3 is a summary of the input received on specific industry sector needs. The discussions did not
follow the original exercise guideline of focusing on business sectors but rather focused on what was
generally needed to make the region prosper, either in general or with an emphasis on transportation.
Some highlights of the discussion for the Capital District-Eastern NY region included:
1. Healthcare, higher education and government as the top three existing economic drivers and
the fact that these rely on the movement of people and require a high quality life in the urban
areas to prosper.
Strength Opportunity
Multimodal transportation networks Growth in new technology
Educational resources Continued growth in exports
Growth in exports Value of multimodal connections
Educated workforce Increased cooperation on range of issues
Adirondacks and recreational opportunities – Make cities more attractive – focus on urban agenda (can be a weakness regional access is good but can be improved and a threat as well)
Location (proximity to Montreal, NYC, Boston) County-wide economic development (Metroplex Example)
Natural Resources (esp. water) - an advantage over
the southwest, for example, in terms of growth potential
Quality of life - medium size area with big area amenities
Weakness Threat
Dependence on government employment Continued loss of manufacturing jobs
Higher business and living costs Higher transportation costs compared to other east coast states
Condition and age of infrastructure Sprawl and related costs
Multimodal connectivity Funding for transportation and economic development
Home-rule state (lack of cooperation limits opportunities) Peak oil/costs, climate change impacts will result in infrastructure
improvement needs (sewers, storm sewers) and need to focus on transit
Limited acreage for development - is being used Business Changes – need to be able to adapt (ex. mechanization of
for housing which is a cost to municipalities distribution process has eliminated need for high inventory levels)
Quality of urban life for younger generation Regulations – APA limits ability to develop upstate,
truck route limitations, DEC regulations (wetlands reg.)
Table 2: Capital District-Eastern NY RPAC SWOT Input
January 2011 Page 7
2. If we can grow economically, we have an opportunity to do it “the right way” – focus on planned
growth, e.g., maximizing the use of existing infrastructure, supporting multi-modal options,
improving urban livability, etc.
3. We are still paying for the old infrastructure, so when we build in greenfields we create new
maintenance needs and costs on top of the existing needs.
4. Regionalism and home rule are significant issues that inhibit success.
5. Surface transportation is adequate, but connections need to be improved and more choices
need to be made available.
6. Regulatory reform, policies and legislative action need to be supportive of working in an
environment with a scarcity of resources.
7. The Tech Sector is the greatest opportunity for growth in the Capital region.
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. The
discussion focused on the need for good planning, regional cooperation, and the need for urban quality
of life to attract workers.
Business Sectors
Professional, scientific,
technical services
Government
Retail and wholesale trade
Financial services
Travel and tourism
Higher education
Healthcare
In general
Nano-technology
Bio-medical devices
Advanced manufacturing
Communications, software and
media services
Alternative energy
All these emerging businesses share the need to be able to ship/receive
goods and attract employees with good urban quality of life
Table 3: Capital District-Eastern NY Economic Development and Transportation Exercise
Surface transportation is pretty good, but need viable choices and need to
improve connections
If we can grow – we have an opportunity to do it right; We still need to
maintain existing infrastructure and be aware of the additional costs to
maintain if we build any new infrastructure
Eme
rgin
g In
du
stri
es
Transportation Needs (general characteristics or policy) issues)
Exis
tin
g Ec
on
om
ic D
rive
rs Just-in-time system relies on dependable transportation
Attracting & retaining young people with multi-modal options, bike trails,
access to wireless, etc., making the urban areas attractive
Access to Adirondacks
Fiber optics is a future need for the technology industry; Need for skilled
technology workers most likely to change in the future going forward
Attracting & retaining young people with multi-modal options, bike trails,
access to wireless, etc., making the urban areas attractive
January 2011 Page 8
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
additional technologies were to become available? If additional resources are available? If
significant greenhouse gas reductions are mandated? )
Table 4: Capital District-Eastern NY RPAC Investment Suggestions
Policy issues/legislative change (e.g. home rule) - every agency
consider impact of its regulations
Transit (bus rapid transit and smart growth)
Sustainable energy development (battery plant)
Wireless access
Infrastructure that supports regionalism
Improved access to airport hubs from Albany
Ensure regulations support port development and growth (e.g. ballast
water/invasive species regulation that threatens imports)
Maintenance of existing infrastructure
Rail investments (balance of high speed rail with freight rail)
Paved bikeways to support tourism
New visions/CDTC - has many strategies with a consensus on
importance, but need funds to implement
January 2011 Page 9
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
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
reflect many of the issues discussed during the meeting such as the need for improvements that support
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
livability that will attract young professionals to the area. Other examples of comments include the
need for rail investment and interchange improvements.
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)
Area Mode Comment
Education for municipal leaders town/village and county on value of regional
approach
Long range coordination regionally from a transportation perspective
RailRail investment Albany-Buffalo for freight and passenger (passenger could
offset poor air service)
EnergyPotential for the corridor to generate new energy opportunities to reduce
business cost
Need transit oriented development
Smart growth/complete streets
Thruway - mainline tolling
Improvements near Exit 24 on Thruway
In general Impact of Global Foundries
Areawide
Land use
Highway
Table 6: Capital District-Eastern NY RPAC Mapping Exercise Comments
Cooperation
Albany
January 2011 Page 11
Slide 1
Mohawk-Erie Multimodal
Transportation Corridor Study
Capital District-Eastern Region
Project Advisory Committee
November 12, 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 12
Slide
9 Capital District-Eastern
Region SWOT Analysis
Strengths:• Population growth• Multimodal transportation networks• Educational resources• Growth in exports• Educated workforce
Slide
11 SWOT Findings
Opportunities:• Growth in New Technologies Businesses • Continued Growth in Exports • Value of multimodal connections• Regional Cooperation
Slide
10 SWOT Findings
Weaknesses• Dependence on government
employment• Higher business and living costs• Condition and age of infrastructure• Multimodal connectivity
Slide
12 SWOT Findings
Threats:• Continued loss of manufacturing jobs• Funding for transportation and economicdevelopment
• Higher transportation costs compared toother east coast states
• Sprawl and related costs
Slide
13
January 2011 Page 13
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 14
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