mohawk-erie multimodal transportation corridor study ... · the mohawk-erie corridor connects major...

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).


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


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


avg=8.9


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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%


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


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


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


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


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



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?


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

mohawk-erie multimodal transportation corridor study ... · the mohawk-erie corridor connects major...

Documents