Stakeholders’ Advisory Working Groups
Traffic and Transit Meeting #1 and 2, June 6 and July 11 and Land Use Meeting #2, July 17, 2007

The Traffic and Transit SAWG meeting #1 was held on June 6, 2007 at the Comfort Inn & Suites in Nanuet, Rockland County, NY. View minutes of the meeting here (PDF, 38 KB).

Traffic and Transit SAWG meeting #2 was held on July 11, 2007 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in White Plains, Westchester County, New York. View minutes of the meeting here (PDF, 41 KB).

The Land Use SAWG meeting #2, on the Traffic and Transportation topic, was held on July 17, 2007 at the Crowne Plaza, White Plains, Westchester County, NY. View minutes of the meeting here (PDF, 38 KB).

The presentation can be viewed in the following formats:

Land Use title slide.

The presentation will describe the transportation data collected to date and how we are using it to predict future conditions.

The first part of the presentation focuses on how we establish existing traffic conditions.

Many elements of data go into the forecasting of future travel.

This map shows locations where traffic counts were done in Rockland County, supplementing the counts available from other government agencies.  The counts were concentrated on I–287 and Route 59.

This map shows locations where traffic counts were done in Rockland County, supplementing the counts available from other government agencies.  The counts were concentrated on I–287 and Route 59.

This map shows the locations where traffic counts were done in Westchester County.  The counts were concentrated on I–287, Route 119 and Route 120A.

This map shows the locations where traffic counts were done in Westchester County.  The counts were concentrated on I–287, Route 119 and Route 120A.

Surveys were done to collect data on current travel. The following slides show some of the results. The transit survey included all buses crossing the river and train passengers on the Port Jervis and Pascack Valley Lines. The truck survey investigated the impact of congestion pricing tolls. The stated preference survey examined how residents and travelers in the corridor viewed alternative transit modes.

Based on a survey of automobiles passing through the Tappan Zee Bridge toll plaza, the graph shows the origins on the west side of the Hudson and the destinations on the east side.

Graph shows all Hudson River crossings to NYC for average weekday trips from Rockland & Orange Counties.

This part of the presentation focuses on how we use our data on existing conditions to predict future conditions.

The procedure we will follow is to systematically look at the variables in the future and see what impact they have on travel.

Forecasts of population and employment are developed by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) with the cooperation of the counties it serves. Capital projects are all projects funded in the Transportation Improvement Programs adopted by the metropolitan planning organization.

This graph shows population forecast by five–year increments. The NYMTC forecasts currently are to 2030. Forecasts for 2035 are projections based on growth rates by zone between 2025 and 2030.

Employment forecasts were treated the same way as population forecasts.  Note that employment in Westchester is growing faster than population.

The forecasts consider all approved capital projects.

Service Plans – Establishing Future Operating Conditions.

HOT lanes are a means of fully utilizing lanes set aside for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs) by allowing other vehicles in the lanes, for a toll, limited to the number that can operate without causing problems.

This diagram shows the bus routes using the BRT facilities across the corridor, but extending, in mixed traffic, to points north and south of the corridor, including Bergen County, Stamford, Yonkers and the Bronx.

Diagram illustrating stop pattern and frequency of service for existing and proposed services.  Green columns are service down the western shore to Hoboken and Penn Station, orange columns are services from Rockland and Orange Counties to Grand Central, and blue columns are cross–corridor service from Port Jervis and Hillburn to White Plains and Stamford.

The same diagrams are shown for Alternatives 4B and 4C, without cross–corridor rail service.  Note that all trains crossing the river would stop at the proposed Tappan Zee Station.

The service plan for light rail is simple, with one route stopping at all stops.

This diagram shows the bus routes for Alternative 4C. Fewer routes serve Rockland County since there would be a rail service to the Hudson Line under this alternative.

The Computer Modeling Process.

The basic travel forecasting model we’re using is the Best Practice Model (BPM), a model developed especially for the New York metropolitan area.  It is a state–of–the–art model.

BPM takes socio–economic data and uses it to forecast future travel and determine its mode and route.

The BPM Flowchart shows the sequence of computer programs that make up the Best Practice Model.

This illustration shows the level of detail in the BPM highway network, which includes all freeways (red), parkways (green), and most major arterials and collector routes (blue) but not all streets.

This illustration shows the level of detail of the transit network, which includes all commuter rail lines (red), express bus routes (yellow), and local bus routes (green).

BPM has four transit modes, three auto modes, taxi and three commercial vehicle modes.

Before we applied BPM to future conditions, we calibrated it for 2005 based on existing count and travel data.

We’re using BPM to test six alternatives and some options within each alternative.

An example of an option being evaluated with BPM shows the possible BRT route from Suffern to Airmont Road using the Piermont right–of–way as an exclusive busway.

While BPM forecasts travel by all modes, we use Paramics, a traffic simulation model, to analyze traffic on the roadways, based on forecasts from BPM.

Traffic is measured using levels of service – a standardized method developed by the Federal Highway Administration that grades traffic from A to F.

We have to calibrate the Paramics model to current conditions before applying it in the future.

As an example, we are using Paramics to analyze the impact of a reconfigured Interchange 11 in Nyack.

This example of options being evaluated using Paramics shows alternative interchange configurations at Interchange 11 in Nyack.

Listing of possible topics to be presented in future meetings.