West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Study

Transcription

1 West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Study Open House Presentation June 1, Agenda 1. Progress to Date 2. Level 1 Screening Analysis 3. Level 2 Screening Criteria 4. Next Steps 5. Questions and Answers 2

2 Progress to Date Long List of Alternatives updated and identified options - conducted Level 1 screening Updated existing conditions data. Continued preparing ridership and airport travel forecast models Continued coordinating with FTA and local municipalities Facilitated roundtable discussions 3 Reasons for Study 4

3 Fast Population and Employment Growth 5 Rapid local and Regional Development 6

4 Commuter Travel Airport Travel 7 Growing Congestion 8

5 Need for Better Transit Service 9 Coordination and Collaboration Newburgh Area Land Use & Transportation Study New Windsor Master Plan Access to the Region s Core (ARC) Tappan Zee Bridge / I-287 Environmental Review Other agency studies & initiatives Current ongoing residential and commercial development efforts MPO Coordination NJTPA, OCTC, NYMTC, Poughkeepsie-Dutchess and UCTC 10

6 Long List of Alternatives Commuter Market Express Bus to or from Manhattan Lincoln Tunnel, GWB, Tappan Zee Bridge routes Commuter Rail Port Jervis Line Hudson Line Extensions or connecting service from existing rail lines High Speed Ferry 11 Long List of Alternatives Airport Market Regional Bus/Shuttle/Park and Rides network: North: Ulster and Sullivan Counties, NY East: Dutchess and Putnam Counties, Danbury CT West: Orange County, NY and Sussex County, NJ South: Bergen County, NJ, I-287 NY, and I-95 CT Express Bus to or from Manhattan Commuter Rail Extension of Port Jervis or Hudson Line Connection to existing rail stations 12

7 Screening Process 13 Level 1 Screening 14

8 Level 1 Screening Criteria 15 Capacity Transportation Criteria High: Medium: Low: No comparable service exists Some service exists Duplicate service exists User Benefits High: Medium: Low: Estimated travel time less than 90 minutes Estimated travel time 90 to 100 minutes Estimated travel time greater than 100 minutes 16

9 Transportation Criteria Potential to Reduce Transfers: Yes: No: Require no transfers Require one or more transfers Potential to Improve Reliability: High: Medium: Low: Operates mostly in dedicated ROW - with single mode under joint operating agreement Operates in some dedicated ROW - avoids major congestion; multiple modes, no joint agreement. Operates in mixed traffic; vulnerable to seasonal weather conditions 17 Transportation Criteria Integration with Existing System: High: Flexible and easily integrated Medium: Integration with some difficulty Low: Major barriers to integration Mobility and Accessibility High: Medium: Low: New service with intermodal connections - highly accessible to users Modest improvements - limited intermodal connections - moderately accessible to users Little or no improvement 18

10 Environmental Criteria Avoidance of Major Adverse Impacts High: Medium: Low: No known major adverse impacts Some adverse impacts Major unavoidable adverse impacts 19 Capital Cost Measures Cost Criteria Low: Medium: High: Less then $50 million $50 million -$249 million Greater then $250 million Bus and bus rapid transit (BRT) Order of Magnitude Capital Costs: Rating (H/M/L) Rail Alternatives Order of Magnitude Costs per Mile: Rating (H/M/L) 20

11 Level 1 Screening Preliminary Results 21 Level 1 Screening 1 Direct Bus Long List of Alternatives and Options (106) Direct Rail (PJL) Direct Rail (HL) Hybrid (PJL) Hybrid (HL) Ferry 7 TSM/TDM Transportation (20) Airport Market A Systems (20) Management (20) Commuter Market C Beacon Transportation Demand Environmental Management Cost I-84 Level 1 Screening Criteria Salisbury Mills Alternatives / Options (22) Port Jervis Line I Hudson River Hudson Line

12 Results by Alternative Grouping Number of Alternatives with options retained Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Direct Bus Direct Rail (PJL) Direct Rail (HL) Hybrid (PJL) Hybrid (HL) Ferry TSM/TDM Alternatives All Options Group 1: Direct Regional Bus Alternatives 24

13 Group 2: Direct Commuter Rail from PJL Group 3: Direct Commuter Rail from HL 26

14 Group 4: Hybrid Commuter Rail from PJL 27 Group 5: Hybrid Commuter Rail from HL 28

15 Group 6 High Speed Ferry Service 29 Group 7 TSM/TDM Alternatives

16 Summary of Results TSM/TDM 31 Level 2 Screening 32

17 Screening Criteria Categories Transportation Performance Environmental Impacts Cost 33 Basis for Level 2 Screening Goals and objectives of the project drive screening measures Data sources - Transportation Model results - GIS, Environmental conditions - SWF Redevelopment plan - Costs (capital and O&M) 34

18 Goal 1: Improve commuter transit access and mobility between Central Orange County and New York City Change in transit travel time Frequency and span of service Number of transfers Reliability of mode Ability to adjust service levels to meet demand Connections to existing and planned transit facilities Increase in transit mode share in study markets 35 Goal 2: Provide transit options for access to/from SWF and surrounding regions Change in transit travel time between origin and SWF Consistency with SWF market strategy Consistency with SWF redevelopment Effort 36

19 Goal 3: Contribute to the attainment of regional and local environmental goals. Increase in transit mode share Ability to avoid major adverse impacts on the natural environment - surface waters, wetlands, critical habitat Ability to avoid major adverse impacts on the built environment - displacements - noise - contaminated or hazardous materials - historic districts, sites and archaeological resources 37 Goal 4: Support smart residential and economic growth Consistency with existing land use plans and policies Potential to support Transit-Oriented Development Compatibility with planned land use and environmental initiatives 38

20 Goal 5: Improve efficiency, convenience and integration of transportation services. Preliminary cost compared to user benefit Preliminary Capital Cost Preliminary Operations and Maintenance Costs Number of connections to existing bus routes 39 Next Steps Incorporate comments and finalize Level 1 screening Develop and refine alternatives for Level 2 analysis Refine and update Level 2 screening criteria Begin Travel Demand Forecasting evaluation for No Build and Build alternatives Update FTA on project progress 40

21 Schedule 41 Questions and Answers 42