Chapter PURPOSE AND NEED

Transcription

1 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 2 PURPOSE AND NEED This section identifies the transportation constraints and need for improved transit services to accommodate growing travel demand between Central Orange County, the Mid-Hudson region, Manhattan and Stewart International Airport for both commuters and airport users. It also describes the process to identify transit solutions that would improve mobility and support long-term growth in the region. 2.1 Problem Statement and Study Area Needs As noted in Chapter 1, a growing number of Central Orange County residents rely on bus and rail transit services to reach work places in Manhattan Central Business District (CBD). These transit services are constrained by several factors. Local roads and main roadways leading out from Central Orange County are experiencing deteriorating traffic conditions. Bus services utilize congested roadways to reach destinations in Manhattan and as the region grows, highway congestion is forecast to worsen leading to increased travel times with greater variance. Furthermore, growth in commuter rail service on the PJL is also constrained by capacity limitations, limited transit access to stations, and the need to transfer at either Secaucus Junction or Hoboken to connecting train service to Manhattan. Additionally, the ability to accommodate the increased demand for reverse and off-peak service on the capacity-constrained PJL needs to be addressed. Air passenger and employee access to and from SWF represents another key transportation issue. Today, SWF primarily serves Orange County and adjacent counties in the Mid-Hudson region, northwestern New Jersey, and western Connecticut. Flights to and from SWF provide direct service to Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, Atlanta, Detroit and Philadelphia. 1 The Port Authority continues to invest in improved airport facilities to attract and support future growth in service and passenger volumes at SWF. Port Authority s airport planning includes comprehensive strategies for capital improvements to facilities, attraction of additional air carriers, and improved ground access. At present, nearly all access to SWF is by automobile. Since 2007, when the Port Authority took over operations of SWF, available public parking has been increased by more than 1,200 parking spaces to a current total of 2,029 parking spaces. The long-term parking lot, bordering the terminal, and located between Circulation Drive and Breunig Road was recently expanded to accommodate 1,500 parking spaces. More than 800 of these parking spaces are within walking distance of the terminal 2. A strategy for relieving the growing demand on terminal-area parking includes improving existing transportation access, providing new transit services for passengers and employees, and greater use of satellite parking lots. Recent improvements made at I-87 Interchange 17, connecting with I-84, and the opening of Exit 5A of I- 84 to Route 747 provide better accessibility to SWF. However, there is little or no transit access to SWF; the nearest rail transit stations are on Metro-North s PJL at Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station and on Metro- 1 The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey website December 10, THINK Stewart International Airport. Fall 2010 Newsletter. Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report 2-1

2 PURPOSE AND NEED North s Hudson Line at Beacon Station across the Hudson River. A limited (approximately one hour headways) bus shuttle linking the Beacon Station with the airport is currently the only scheduled transit service to the airport. Recently, NYSDOT has announced plans to reduce this service. The Port Authority, NYSDOT, Metro-North, and local governments all recognize that development of transit service options for both local and region-wide travel markets is a critical ingredient in supporting transportation and development objectives. In addition, implementing new local and regional transit services for SWF best assures reliable access for passengers and employees while minimizing traffic impacts as the level of airport activity increases. The WHRTAS Study Area has been the subject of many transportation studies at the state, regional, and local level focusing on critical transportation needs. These studies have identified the following key transportation issues and challenges. Increases in population and employment have led to worsening traffic congestion and longer travel times. Orange County, New York is located approximately 50 miles northwest of New York City and contains a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural. From 2000 to 2010, the population in Orange County grew by 9.2 percent, representing one of the highest increases in the region 3. During that same period, employment grew by almost eight percent. Although this growth has slowed along with the broader economy in recent years, the long-term growth rate in Orange County is expected to be among the highest in the state. Projections by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) 4 anticipate that between 2005 and 2035 the population in Orange County will see a growth of approximately 107,000 residents (29 percent) and a growth of 34,000 jobs (25 percent) in the same timeframe. The long term Orange County growth rate in population is significantly higher than for the Mid-Hudson region as a whole and also higher than any other county to the south within the Study Area. The rate of job growth in Orange County is generally comparable to the region. Based on these projections, the Mid- Hudson region, northeastern New Jersey, and Manhattan are expected to show growth of approximately 936,000 jobs combined during this period. If all five boroughs of New York City are included, the growth is approximately 1,518,000 jobs. (See Table 2-1 for the projected population and employment growth to 2035). 3 Source: Us Census Bureau 2010 Census Data. 4 NYMTC forecasts are developed in coordination with Orange County MPO and are used by Orange County MPO for planning purposes. 2-2 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

3 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED Table 2-1 Population and Employment Growth Area Population (in 000s) Employment (in 000s) Growth (%) Growth (%) Orange County, NY (29%) (25%) Mid-Hudson Region 2,011 2, (20%) 798 1, (32%) Northeastern, NJ 2,793 3, (16%) 1,165 1, (21%) Manhattan 1,606 1, (17%) 2,074 2, (21%) New York City 8,209 9,492 1,283 (16%) 3,777 4,789 1,012 (27%) Source: NYMTC Socioeconomic and Demographic Forecast Series, July 2009 Mid-Hudson Region is Orange, Rockland, Ulster, Sullivan, Dutchess, Putnam, and Westchester Counties. Northeastern NJ is Bergen, Passaic, Essex, and Hudson Counties. New York City is Manhattan, Queens, Bronx, Kings, and Richmond Counties. The economy of Orange County is strongly tied to employment located within Orange County and the region that extends generally southward to northern New Jersey and New York City. Figure 2-1 depicts general employment destinations outside of Orange County, the largest of which is Manhattan, where according to the U.S. Census nearly 10,000 Orange County residents worked in This amounted to 18% of all Orange County residents that worked outside the county. In addition to Manhattan, Rockland and Westchester Counties in New York and Bergen County in northern New Jersey were the other major Orange County journey-to-work destinations. The journey-to-work data indicates that the need for convenient access to these and other job markets located between Orange County and New York City is an important component of Orange County s economy and growth potential. Today, ninety percent of Orange County residents reach their workplaces by automobile. As population and employment in Orange County grow, traffic volumes will lead to increased congestion and longer automobile travel times, which potentially limit the ability of Orange County residents to travel to work. Table 2-2 shows estimates of daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) and the ratio of VMT to VHT in Orange County, for 2005 and The VMT/VHT ratio is lower in 2035 than in 2005, which indicates a drop in speeds throughout the county. Table 2-2 Orange County Daily VMT and VHT Estimates for 2005 and Vehicle Miles Traveled 9,223,951 15,569,725 Vehicle Hours Traveled 252, ,832 VMT/VHT Source: NYMTC Socioeconomic and Demographic Forecast Series, July 2009 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report 2-3

4 PURPOSE AND NEED Figure 2-1 Year 2000 Journey to Employment Locations for Orange County Residents In 2005, the total highway travel time from New Windsor in Orange County to Manhattan (approximately 60 miles) was 94 minutes at an average speed of 49 miles per hour (mph). By the year 2035, forecasted auto travel times from New Windsor to New York City could more than double, taking well over 2.5 hours at speeds ranging from 31 to 49 mph 5. Bus travel times are expected to grow by a similar amount. 5 Results from the BPM using the 2004 NYMTC demographic and socioeconomic forecast series. 2-4 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

5 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED Transit accessibility and mobility in the West of Hudson Study Area are inadequate. As noted in Chapter 1, Metro-North provides commuter rail service to the counties north of Manhattan east and west of the Hudson River. East of the Hudson River, Metro-North has three major commuter lines Hudson Line, Harlem Line, and New Haven Line. West of the Hudson River, there are only two commuter rail lines the PJL and the Pascack Valley Line, the latter of which terminates at Spring Valley just north of the New Jersey border (Figure 2-2). The PJL and Pascack Valley lines operate south to Secaucus and Hoboken on NJT s Main/Bergen County Line. Counties located within the WHRTAS Study Area in New York State and west of the Hudson River (Orange, Ulster, Sullivan, and Rockland), are growing faster than other parts of the study area, and yet are served only by the PJL. Because the PJL is mostly a single track railroad and is currently served by one rail yard located 95 miles from Hoboken in Port Jervis, NY there are limitations on the ability of that line to serve growing demand for reverse-peak and off-peak services. Figure 2-2 MTA Metro-North Railroad Map The rail service from Orange County to Manhattan currently requires a transfer at Secaucus Junction to trains serving Penn Station NY or at Hoboken to PATH or ferry services. Due to PJL limitations, the service offers 6 morning peak period trains in the inbound direction. Total trip times from Salisbury Mills to Penn Station range from 85 to 100 minutes. By contrast, the service on the Hudson Line offers 12 morning peak period trains from Beacon to Grand Central Terminal with travel times from 72 to 86 minutes. Because service on the PJL is not as frequent or fast as on the Hudson Line, many Orange County commuters use the Hudson Line even though it requires driving over the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge or using a feeder service such as the Newburgh-Beacon Bus or a ferry to Beacon Station. Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report 2-5

6 PURPOSE AND NEED The bus service between Orange County and Manhattan consists of express bus routes operating from the Route 17K park and ride facility, as well as shuttle bus connections to Beacon Station on Metro- North s Hudson Line. The shuttle bus, offers every half hour service in the peak hours direction, and about hourly service in both directions during rest of the day. Coach USA offers 11 morning peak period express bus trips between Newburgh and the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. Total travel times range from 80 to 110 minutes. The reliability of this bus service is dependent on roadway congestion. Direct bus service from New York City to SWF is not available. Because of these constraints, transit mode share is significantly lower west of the Hudson River compared to east of the Hudson River and other locations in the metropolitan region. Transit services (rail and bus) connecting Central Orange County to Manhattan only capture 44 percent of the work travel market share compared to 60 percent of Putnam and Dutchess Counties 6. Stewart International Airport Lacks Transit Capable of Supporting Long Term Growth. SWF is a destination for regional air travelers and potentially a major regional employer. The Port Authority envisions SWF filling a niche market by providing convenient service for many travelers to and from the Mid-Hudson region thereby offering some relief to the New York metropolitan area airports. From 2002 to 2007, enplanements doubled at SWF, before deteriorating economic conditions and adverse conditions in the aviation industry sharply reduced service and enplanements in The Port Authority continues to invest in improved airport facilities to attract and support future growth in service and passenger volumes at SWF. As with AirTrain JFK and AirTrain Newark, the Port Authority sees the development of user-friendly, practical alternatives to private auto use as an integral part of its airport planning and marketing strategies. Table 2-3 presents forecasts provided by the Port Authority for annual volumes of originating passengers (excluding those transferring between connecting flights) for the six airports in the metropolitan area included in the analysis of the regional air traveler market. These future year originating enplanement forecasts for SWF form a static model input for all of the model forecasts. The SWF forecasts are aspirational to test the ridership potential of various transit alternatives serving the airport market and are not an official projection of air passenger growth. Using this set of assumptions, SWF would be serving approximately 3.5 million annual enplanements (including connecting passengers) or 7 million total passengers in Table Annual Originating Enplanements at New York Region Airports Airport Originating Passengers* John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) 26,273,873 Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) 17,391,230 LaGuardia International Airport (LGA) 13,849,469 Stewart International Airport (SWF) 3,465,000 Long Island Mac Arthur Airport (ISP) 2,303,455 Westchester County Airport (HPN) 1,455,570 * Not including connecting flights Source: WHRTAS Air Passenger Forecasting Report (Draft). RSG Inc. Transportation. March Pg According to 2000 U.S. Census, over 60 percent of Putnam and Dutchess County commuters used transit to reach workplaces in Manhattan. The lower transit share for Orange County commuters is primarily attributed to the relatively limited rail service available on the PJL and the long travel time by express bus service due to congested roadways. 7 WHRTAS Air Passenger Forecasting Report (Draft). RSG Inc. Transportation. March Pg Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

7 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED Table 2-4 shows the breakdown of trips to airports within the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) model region by four types of passenger trip: Resident Non-business, Resident Business, Non-resident Non-business and Non-resident Business. In addition, a small percentage of future originating enplanements at each of the airports, begin their ground access trips outside the NYMTC model region. See Section F5 in Appendix F for additional information about the airport modeling methodology. Table Annual Originating Enplanements Internal to the NYMTC Region by Trip Type Airport Resident Non-Resident Non-Business Business Non-Business Business JFK 9,874,571 2,408,181 9,416,605 3,529,941 EWR 5,866,968 3,312,061 4,185,699 2,846,120 LGA 4,904,203 2,304,975 3,844,895 2,537,108 SWF 1,397, ,683 1,006, ,409 ISP 887, ,600 1,033, ,400 HPN 435, , , ,326 Source: WHRTAS Air Passenger Forecasting Report (Draft). RSG Transportation. March Pg The model assumes that Resident Non-business trips typically originate from households, and households with higher income take significantly more trips. Resident Business trips are a function of the employed labor force, but the place of origin of these trips is less certain. A Resident Business trip may start from a place of work or it may start from a household. Non-Resident Non-Business trips are made by passengers whose trip purposes range from tourism to visiting friends or family. A typical Non-Resident Non-Business could originate from a household in rural New York or from a hotel in Midtown Manhattan. Non-Resident Business trips are similar to Resident Business trips and could originate from a place of business, a hotel or similar lodging, or a relative s home. Table 2-4 shows that most of the trips in all the six airports would be non-business (i.e. Resident Nonbusiness and Non-resident Non-business) trips for the forecast year SWF would have approximately 2.4 million annual enplanements for non-business purpose and only approximately 0.7 million enplanements for business purpose. Access to SWF and the surrounding area is almost entirely automobile-oriented, which makes it difficult for travelers without a car. While the Port Authority recently expended parking capacity at SWF and land is available to construct additional parking spaces at the airport, airport redevelopment planning envisions a balance of auto and transit use for ground access to SWF. Furthermore, Orange County is evaluating ways to attract additional commercial development in business parks in the vicinity of the airport 8. In summary, improving public transportation access is required to accommodate the projected growth at SWF and development opportunities adjacent to SWF as well as to facilitate the movement of air passengers and airport employees. 8 New York State Comptroller. April An Economic Snapshot of Orange County. Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report 2-7

8 PURPOSE AND NEED 2.2 Goals and Objectives WHRTAS evaluates two separate markets (commuter and airport) and transportation problems; its goal is to identify a feasible phased solution that will address both markets in the short-, mid-, and long-term implementation. The following goals and objectives have been developed by Metro-North and the Port Authority through the project public involvement process to guide the development and evaluation of alternatives: Goal 1: Improve commuter transit access and mobility between Central Orange County and New York City Objectives: 1.1 Reduce travel time 1.2 Increase frequency of service 1.3 Improve schedule reliability 1.4 Increase operational flexibility and expandability 1.5 Improve station accessibility 1.6 Maximize use of existing infrastructure 1.7 Increase transit mode share Goal 2: Provide transit options for access to/from Stewart International Airport as demand grows over time to serve the needs of air travelers, employees, and others in the Mid- Hudson and New York City markets Objectives: 2.1 Competitive travel time and cost 2.2 Consistent with SWF market strategy 2.3 Consistent with SWF near-term, mid-term, and long-term infrastructure and operations Goal 3: Contribute to the attainment of regional and local environmental goals Objectives: 3.1 Improve air quality 3.2 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 3.3 Protect natural resources 3.4 Balance project burdens and benefits in Environmental Justice communities 3.5 Reduce energy consumption Goal 4: Support smart residential and economic growth in SWF area, Orange County, and the Region Objectives: 4.1 Support of adopted local and regional land use and economic development plans and policies 4.2 Coordinate with interfacing projects and initiatives at the local, regional, and state level 2-8 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

9 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED Goal 5: Improved efficiency, convenience and integration of transportation services Objectives: 5.1 Efficient fare collection and cost structure 5.2 Coordinate services and schedules across modes of both public and private operators 2.3 Study Process This study follows FTA guidelines for Alternatives Analysis planning studies. The approach used in this study, was to conduct the Alternative Analysis in two phases. This document describes Phase I and initiates the Alternatives Analysis process, considering a broad range or long list of possible alternatives and options across a range of modes. Using evaluation criteria related to the overall study goals and objectives, these alternatives were screened down to a short list of the most promising options. In the subsequent Phase II, the Alternatives Analysis will be completed for the short list of alternatives with more detailed analysis leading to a recommended Locally Preferred Alternative. If progressed beyond the Alternatives Analysis stage, future phases would include the initiation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) where a detailed impact review of the Locally Preferred Alternative is conducted and mitigation actions are developed. In parallel, preliminary engineering activities may be initiated. The EIS process concludes with the publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the issuance by the FTA of a Record of Decision (ROD) that would allow the project to complete design and initiate construction. Throughout the process, the project team sought input from local governments, partner agencies, and the public. (Figure 2-3). Figure 2-3 Overall Study Process Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report 2-9

10 PURPOSE AND NEED Phase 1 Screening Process Phase I of the study considered two screening levels; Level 1 and Level 2 (see Figure 2-4). Each screening level evaluated potential transit alternatives to serve the travel needs of both the commuter and airport travel markets as well as multi-modal transportation alternatives that require less capital investment for short, mid- and long-term implementation. Figure 2-4 Phase I Screening Steps The Level 1 Screening, discussed in Chapter 3, started with the development of a comprehensive long list of alternatives. This long list of alternatives were screened utilizing a Pass/Fail method which focused on eliminating alternatives that did not meet the study s goals and objectives or were determined not feasible.. The shorter list of alternatives that emerged from the Level 1 Screening was developed in greater detail and was considered in the Level 2 Screening and analyses (Chapters 4 and 5). The Level 2 Screening applied more detailed evaluation measures to assess the performance of each alternative in achieving the study goals and objectives. The alternatives were then compared to each other and against the No- Build Alternative. The conclusion of the Level 2 Screening is a further reduced short list of alternatives to be advanced for further study in Phase II. For each screening level, criteria and measures have been developed in three basic screening categories - transportation, environment, and cost. In Level 1, the pass/fail method was used to screen the initial long list of alternatives against key measures developed for each screening category (see Chapter 3). In Level 2 the measures were expanded to include more specific detail and elements such as transit ridership; changes in transit mode share; potential environmental impacts; and preliminary capital, operating, and maintenance costs (see Chapter 4). At each step in the screening process, greater detail and more comprehensive performance measures were applied to a decreasing number of transportation 2-10 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

11 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED alternatives. This approach to narrowing the list will continue in Phase II of the study to reach the selection of the LPA. (Figure 2-5). Phase I - AA Phase II AA/LPA Figure 2-5 Evaluation Process Level of Detail In order to apply the correct criteria and measures at the proper screening level, the alternatives screened during Level 1 were organized by magnitude of the capital investment and types of services. (Figure 2-6) It is anticipated that alternatives requiring a high or major capital investment will be carried forward into the FTA New Starts program and will require completion of an Alternatives Analysis process during Phase II where a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the New Starts Program will be identified. 2.4 Outreach and Coordination Throughout the process, the project team has implemented an extensive agency coordination and public outreach program to obtain input and establish ongoing, inclusive, and meaningful two-way communication about the project. Throughout the course of the study members of the public have helped inform the planning effort by sharing ideas, participating in the open houses and other events, and commenting via the project web site. The team has held over 26 formal and informal meetings with members of the public, their elected representatives, and also included representatives of business, civic and non-profit organizations as well as public interest and community groups. These meetings took place both individually and in various group forums. During their review process of proposed alternatives, the study team engaged in a variety of strategies and tasks designed to maximize opportunities for the public to comment on the program and also ensure appropriate agency interaction, particularly from those agencies that may have involvement in the next phase of the project. Outreach strategies included an interactive web site; a monitored telephone hotline; meetings with individuals, groups and governmental agencies; production and distribution of newsletters, fact sheets, and a glossary of technical terms and abbreviations. Three large Open House events and variety of smaller roundtable discussions were conducted. These various actions are described in greater detail in Appendix G. Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report 2-11

12 PURPOSE AND NEED In addition, extensive coordination and collaboration with many regional and local initiatives including SWF planning, the Newburgh Area Land Use and Transportation Study, the New Windsor Master Plan and others have been undertaken to establish consistency between these initiatives and WHRTAS (see Appendix G for a detailed list). Figure 2-6 Alternatives Analysis Screening Process 2-12 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report