West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Study Open House presentation July 20, 2010 1 Agenda Progress To date Summary of Level 2 Alternatives and Screening Service Plans Bus and Rail Operating and Capital Costs Methodology Demand Forecasting Methodology Air Passenger Model Development and Forecasting Level 2 Screening Results and Recommendations Next Steps 2 1
Purpose WHRTAS is evaluating alternatives for improved commuter transit services between central Orange County and Manhattan, and improved transit access to Stewart International Airport and the Mid-Hudson Valley and New York City metro area markets. 3 Need Mobility and Access to regional Transit in the West of Hudson Study Area is inadequate. Stewart International Airport Lacks Transit Capable of Supporting Long Term Growth. 2
Goals and Objectives Improve commuter transit access and mobility between central Orange County and New York City Provide transit options for access to/from SWF Airport to serve the needs of air travelers, employees, and others in the Mid-Hudson and New York City Markets Contribute to the attainment of regional and local environmental goals Support smart residential and economic growth in the SWF airport area, Orange County, and the region Improve efficiency, convenience, and integration of transportation services 5 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 6 3
Alternatives Analysis Process Level 1 Screening Over 100 Alternatives and Options Level 2 Screening 22 Alternatives and Options Short List of Alternatives Short, Mid and Long-Term Options We Are Here Analysis of Short List of Alternatives Locally Preferred Alternative 7 Level I Screening Results Group Mode Markets Served 1A Direct Bus Airport 1B 2 4 5 Direct Bus/BRT Direct Commuter Rail from Port Jervis Line Rail (PJL) + Bus/BRT via Salisbury Mills Rail (HL) + Bus via Beacon 7 TSM/TDM Airport & Commuter Airport & Commuter Airport & Commuter Airport & Commuter Airport & Commuter Locations Served Mid-Hudson Valley NYC CBD & Metro NJ/CT NYC CBD & Metro NJ NYC CBD & Metro NJ Options 4 8 6 2 NYC CBD 1 Study Area Various 8 4
Level 2 Alternatives 1A Mid Hudson Bus Sussex, NJ Kingston / New Paltz Danbury, CT White Plains Stamford Patterson Hackensack GW Bus Terminal Port Authority Bus Terminal 9 Level 2 Alternatives 1A Mid Hudson Bus 1B CBD Bus/BRT Sussex, NJ Kingston / New Paltz Danbury, CT White Plains Stamford Patterson Hackensack GW Bus Terminal Port Authority Bus Terminal 10 5
Level 2 Alternatives 1A Mid Hudson Bus 1B CBD Bus/BRT Sussex, NJ Kingston / New Paltz BRT Danbury, CT White Plains Stamford Patterson Hackensack GW Bus Terminal Port Authority Bus Terminal 11 Level 2 Alternatives 1A Mid Hudson Bus 1B CBD Bus/BRT Busway in Median Busway in Shoulder (one side shown) 6
Level 2 Alternatives 1A Mid Hudson Bus 1B CBD Bus/BRT 2 Direct Rail (PJL) Sussex, NJ Kingston / New Paltz Danbury, CT White Plains Stamford Patterson Hackensack GW Bus Terminal Port Authority Bus Terminal 13 Level 2 Alternatives 1A Mid Hudson Bus 1B CBD Bus/BRT 2 Direct Rail (PJL) Sussex, NJ Kingston / New Paltz Danbury, CT 4 Stamford White Plains Hybrid (PJL) Patterson Hackensack GW Bus Terminal Port Authority Bus Terminal 14 7
Level 2 Alternatives 1A Mid Hudson Bus 1B CBD Bus/BRT 2 Direct Rail (PJL) Sussex, NJ Kingston / New Paltz Danbury, CT 4 Stamford White Plains Hybrid (PJL) 5 Hybrid (HL) Patterson Hackensack GW Bus Terminal Port Authority Bus Terminal 15 Level 2 Screening Approach Main screening categories - Transportation, Environment and Cost expanded to address each of the project goals and objectives. 16 8
Level 2 Screening Approach Alternatives were developed to greater conceptual engineering detail Relied on Travel Demand and airport modeling estimate ridership. Forecast assumed build year of 2035 Airport assumed 7 million annual passengers. Utilized GIS in greater capacity to obtain more detail on the natural and build environment Considered capital and O & M costs in greater detail to assess cost effectiveness. 17 Level 2 Screening Approach The screening evaluation performed in two steps: 1. Compared alternatives within each modal group 2. Compared alternatives against each other Key screening differentiators were: Capital Cost Operating and Maintenance Cost Travel Time Ridership 18 9
Level 2 Methodologies Bus and Commuter Rail Service Plans Headways, Span of Service, Fares Capital Cost Guideways and Track Elements (for rail) Busway, Roads (for busses) Stations, Equipment, Vehicles, Park and Ride Facilities, etc.. Operating & Maintenance Cost Infrastructure and Equipment Maintenance, Fuel, Labor Costs, etc. 19 Travel Demand Component Models Input NYMTC Socio-Economic Data Employment, Population, Income Distribution Highway and Transit Network Input NYMTC Socio-Economic Data Enplanement p Data Skims (Transportation ti system Others characteristics) Travel Time & Cost Commuter Model BPM Output Commuter Ridership Skims Airport Passenger Model Output Airport Choice O&D and Mode Input Census Journey to work data Airport Employee Model Output O&D and Mode 20 10
Results 21 Group 1A Mid Hudson Valley Bus Preliminary Level 2 Screening Results: Travel time within the HV region to the Airport 45-55 minutes depending on extent and location Low capital costs: $28-$39 million Annual O&M costs $3-4M Ramp at Rt. 207 for buses from South - $66 Million Attracts very low ridership 22 11
Preliminary Level 2 Screening Results: Travel time to NYC 97-115 minutes depending on extent and location BRT - about 15 minutes shorter travel time with significant capital cost investment Major Up elements/impacts to 700 daily transit airports trips 30 Up miles to 1,200 of pavement daily transit on commuter retain fill trips Widening 10 out of 12 bridges Capital costs: Bus $75-91 M, BRT Widening 19 overpasses $2 B Relocation of 2 miles of I-87 (at Rt. Ramp at Rt. 207 for buses from 207) South - $66 Million Ramp at median to Rt. 207 Annual O&M costs $5-7 M New signalized intersection with bus priority (at Rt. 207) Group 1B Bus/BRT to NYC & CBD 23 Preliminary Level 2 Screening Results: Travel time to NYC 97-115 minutes depending on extent and location BRT - about 15 minutes shorter travel time with significant capital cost investment Up to 700 daily transit airports trips Up to 1,200 daily transit commuter trips Capital costs: Bus $75-91 M, BRT $2 B Ramp at Rt. 207 for buses from South - $66 Million Annual O&M costs $5-7 M Group 1B Bus/BRT to NYC & CBD 24 12
Group 2 Direct Commuter Rail (PJL) Preliminary Level 2 Screening Results: Travel time to NYC 88-99 minutes Highly reliable run times not subject to traffic congestion Up to 3,700 daily transit commuter trips and Up to 1,100 Airport trips including via Beacon/shuttle Network capacity constraints frequency of SWF-NYC peak period service Preliminary capital costs range from $610-840M Annual O&M costs are $26M 25 Rail Alignment Options Key Issues Compatibility with new SWF Terminal (siting and operations) Compatibility with New Windsor development plans Providing direct and convenient access to Airport vs. shuttle service Right-of-way g o ay a and d Environmental o e a issues Security requirements Traffic Issues and access Study area for Rail alignments/station 26 13
Group 4 Rail (PJL) + Bus/BRT via Salisbury Mills Preliminary Level 2 Screening Results: Travel time for Bus ranges from 97 to 102 minutes depending on route and market Bus version is unreliable on local roads About 92 minutes to NYC for BRT version, with increased reliability Up to 100 daily transit commuter trips and 800 daily airport trips Preliminary capital costs range from $3M - $17M for bus version and $118M - $146M for BRT version Annual O&M costs are about $1 M BRT 27 Group 5 Preliminary Level 2 Screening Results: Travel time range - 104 to 111 minutes to NYC (depending on market) Some travel time variability due to I- 84 congestion Up to 400 daily commuter trips and 680 airport trips Preliminary capital costs range from $6-18M Annual O&M costs are $0.8-2 2M Rail (HL) + Bus via Beacon 28 14
Alternative Group (Mode) 1A Direct Bus 1B Direct Bus / BRT 2 Direct Commuter Rail 4 Hybrid Mills 5 Hybrid Beacon Summary of Level 2 screening Alternative Kingston, NY (B-XN); Suffern, NY (B-XS); Danbury, CT (B-XE); Sussex, NJ (B-XW) Short- Term Consultant s Recommendations Airport Market Mid - Term Long- Term Commuter Market Short- Term Mid- Term Long- Term X X X N/A N/A N/A White Plains, NY (B-XWP); Stamford, CT (B-XC); Hoboken, NJ (B-XH); X X X X X X Midtown, NY (B-XM) George Washington Bridge, NYC (B-XG) X X X Patterson, NJ (B-XP); Hackensack, NJ (B-XHA) X X X I-87 BRT (B-C1) N/A N/A X N/A N/A X RC-Eastern (2 Options) N/A N/A X N/A N/A X RC-Breunig, RC Aqueduct Balsam, and RC-Aqueduct Reed St N/A N/A N/A N/A RX-C1 (Bus) X X X X X X RB-C1 (BRT) N/A X N/A X RX-B1 (Bus) RB-B1 (Queue Jump) 29 N/A X X N/A X X TSM/TDM Various Consultants Proposed Short List of Alternatives Short -Term Serves Airport Market Serves Commuter Market Group 1B - Direct Bus to Midtown Group 1B - Direct Bus to GWB Group 1B - Direct Bus to Hackensack Group 5 - Hybrid Rail (Bus connection to Beacon) Mid -Term Group 4- Hybrid Rail (BRT connection to Salisbury Mills) Long-Term Group 2- Direct Rail PJL to Airport 30 15
Next Steps Complete Phase 1 Level 2 Screening Initiate Phase 2 Implement short-term initiatives 31 Questions and Answers 32 16