PAC Meeting 1 WELCOME June 2011 PAC Presentation • Opening Remarks • Introductions
June 2011 PAC Presentation 2
June 2011 PAC Presentation 3
Purpose of Meeting 4 • Confirm Corridor Vision • Confirm Goals and Objectives • Confirm Gaps and Deficiencies June 2011 PAC Presentation • Confirm Economic Drivers • Confirm Key Transportation Characteristics • Review and Comment on Process Framework
Study Update 5 What has happened so far? Up to Round One Meetings June 2011 PAC Presentation • Formation of PACs and Steering Committee • Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats assessments • Initial Modal Profiles developed for all modes of transportation • Discussions on key issues, economic drivers and transportation needs After Round One Meetings • Continuing to develop Modal Profiles • Gaps and Deficiencies • Process Framework • Corridor Vision
Corridor Vision Inputs 6 Importance of Corridor - Strengths • Regions along Corridor have great assets and potential – Metro areas exported more than $21.3 billion goods in 2008 – Over 500,000 professional, technical and health-related jobs in region June 2011 PAC Presentation – 20 Research Centers and 59 Colleges and Universities – 4 Metro Areas rank in the top 6 MSA’s with highest % of associate degree attainment in U.S.; 27% of workforce has a bachelor’s degree – Rich in historical and recreational assets, year-round tourism opportunities – Erie Canal first multimodal transportation and trade asset • Corridor has multimodal assets – Within 24 hours of most national and international markets – Highway network is system backbone – Air cargo and passenger services throughout corridor – Three Class I railroads and short line railroads, multimodal connections – Local transit systems, light rail service in Buffalo – Canal and port network – Canal trail and other pedestrian/bicycle facilities
Corridor Vision Inputs 7 Corridor Challenges • Population and job growth in corridor between 1970 – 2009 below national average affecting June 2011 PAC Presentation stability of non-traded sector businesses and availability of workforce. Source – U.S. Census Bureau population database, 2009 (New York 2010 data not yet released) • Connectivity between modes in some areas is lacking • Infrastructure is aging • Progress takes partnerships (among modes; among levels of government -- federal, state, and local; among investors – public and private) • Scarce resources require identification of investment priorities and supporting policies
Corridor Vision Inputs 8 • Support the economy through job Round One PAC Input growth Improve movement of goods and people Improved connectivity High quality options for commuters Improved reliability June 2011 PAC Presentation • Support tourism economy Serve the historic and recreational assets of the regions along the Corridor More flexibility (i.e., more options) User friendly Improved ped/bike/trail connections • Support livability Improve quality of life to attract businesses and workers to the area More mode choices Improved ped/bike/trail connections • Support sustainable transportation system Energy efficiency Maintain critical assets
Corridor Vision 9 Copy of document in meeting materials Vision Statement June 2011 PAC Presentation The Mohawk- Erie Corridor’s transportation system will support the region’s economic competitiveness and quality of life by linking the region’s people, businesses, and industries to national and global marketplaces, and to each other. Building on the Corridor’s rich transportation assets and history, the transportation system will provide safe and efficient travel and connections for people and goods, balance the needs of businesses and communities, and help foster real and lasting prosperity.
10 Corridor Goals and Objectives Infrastructure Preservation E conomic Competitiveness State of Good Repair Freight Movement June 2011 PAC Presentation Environment Journey to Work/Business Energy Efficiency Travel Environmental Footprint Tourism Access Resilience (Scenario Impacts) Quality of Life Marcellus Shale Transit Accessibility Price of Gas Recreational Accessibility GHG Emissions Education Accessibility Increased Freight Flows Health Care Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Cost Timing Cost Benefit
Discussion 11 Vision Statement The Mohawk- Erie Corridor’s transportation system will support the region’s economic competitiveness and quality June 2011 PAC Presentation of life by linking the region’s people, businesses, and industries to national and global marketplaces, and to each other. Building on the Corridor’s rich transportation assets and history, the transportation system will provide safe and efficient travel and connections for people and goods, balance the needs of businesses and communities, and help foster real and lasting prosperity. • Corridor Vision – What do you like? – What could be better? – Final Changes
12 Discussion Infrastructure Preservation E conomic Competitiveness State of Good Repair Freight Movement Environment Journey to Work/Business Energy Efficiency Travel June 2011 PAC Presentation Environmental Footprint Tourism Access Resilience (Scenario Impacts) Quality of Life Marcellus Shale Price of Gas Transit Accessibility GHG Emissions Recreational Accessibility Increased Freight Flows Education Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Health Care Accessibility Cost Timing Cost Benefit • Goals and Objectives — What do you like? — What could be better?
13 Future Direction Where are we headed? • Key issues do not relate to capacity/travel time • Connectivity and mode choice are more important June 2011 PAC Presentation • Approach must assess which projects best serve the corridor needs Create an assessment tool that relates needs of key economic drivers and quality of life factors to characteristics of proposed projects and determines which projects perform “the best”
14 Study Outcomes Action plan that makes transportation a distinguishing feature in the future of the regions along the Corridor enhancing economic competitiveness and quality of life June 2011 PAC Presentation requires • Action Plan • Distinguishing Feature in Development of the Regions Prioritized projects based on potential benefit as well as Knowledge of what is necessary policies to strengthen from transportation to make the transportation system regions prosper
15 Action Plan Financial constraints are the new normal. Need to filter suggested multimodal improvements to determine best performance relative to need. Suggest policy, operational, and regulatory changes to provide a project/policy action June 2011 PAC Presentation plan Policies to Support Action Transportation Prioritized as a Plan Projects Distinguishing Feature
June 2011 PAC Presentation 16 Process Overview
17 Process Elements Traditional transportation models use changes in peak-hour travel time to evaluate improvements. Generally, congestion isn’t an issue in Corridor. Connectivity, reliability, mode choices, etc. are key. This framework focuses on needs of key economic drivers and quality of life. June 2011 PAC Presentation Supply Side Demand Side Evaluation • Transportation • Key Economic Process Projects Driver Clusters More info • Project • Transportation Info Needs
18 Supply Side - Projects Proposed and suggested Where do projects come from that will be prioritized? projects in the Corridor NYSTA/CC and Rural June 2011 PAC Presentation Area NYSDOT NYSTA/CC and Programmed Roadway, Bridge, and Programming Statewide Waterway Needs (including Transportation (Info) maintenance) and Transit Capacity Improvement Program (STIP) MPO Transportation Improvement Programs Statewide & Programmed Ports and Airport Corridor-wide Needs Modal & System Transportation Modal Plans Provider Interviews MPO Long Range Filters Non-programmed Multimodal Needs Plans – Unfunded Economic Driver Needs Surveys Stakeholder Input CPAC/RPAC Input Gaps and Deficiencies Modal Profiles Analysis
Filters 19 Projects will be subjected to several filters during evaluation process 1. Vision Filter June 2011 PAC Presentation – Does it strengthen transportation 2. Fatal Flaw Analysis – Criteria (not yet determined) may result in project being archived for future plan/program development but eliminated from further consideration in this analysis. Criteria could include: • Implementation timetable 20+ years • Mega projects requiring major investment eliminating funding for other improvements • Private investment required for project, private support for project is not currently evident • Projects not on the core M-E network (to be defined once economic drivers are mapped) • Significant environmental impact 3. Gaps and Deficiencies Filter – Does it address an identified gap or deficiency More Info
Recommend
More recommend
