4 level 2 screening - mtaweb.mta.info/mta/planning/whrtas/pdf/chapter_4_level_2_screening.pdf4 level...

Chapter 4 LEVEL 2 SCREENING

Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report 4-1

4 LEVEL 2 SCREENING This chapter describes the development in greater detail of the 22 alternatives that advanced from the Level 1 to the Level 2 screening, their evaluation against expanded evaluation criteria, the findings and additional analysis performed to obtain greater understating of the study.

Alternatives from Groups 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 were advanced from the Level 1 Screening. No alternatives were advanced from Groups 3 and 6 (see Table 3-3 in Chapter 3). During the Level 2 development process, some alternatives and options were modified and new route variations introduced based on input received from the public and through the agency coordination process. The alternatives were developed in greater detail. Operating and maintenance costs were introduced and capital costs were expanded and applied in greater specificity. Travel times were determined and transit demand was estimated for the commuter and airport markets.

Similarly, the Level 2 evaluation measures were expanded from those used in the “Pass/Fail” method of Level 1 to gain a more detailed assessment of the performance of each alternative in achieving the study goals and objectives. In addition to including the measures noted above, environmental measures were developed for key areas of concern and applied at a high level to measure differences between the alternatives and options.

This Level 2 Alternatives and Screening Process are discussed in detail in the following sections.

4.1 Description of Alternatives

For the Level 2 Screening, it was necessary to further define the Build alternatives to a level of detail appropriate for evaluation against Level 2 screening criteria. The alternatives that were developed included the following services: Bus/BRT, CRT, and a Hybrid consisting of bus service connecting with commuter rail services. The Build alternatives use the same groupings described in Chapter 3 Section 3.1.3.1.

During the development process, bus routes were modified and new route variations were introduced as a result of input received from the public and through the agency coordination process. As a result, the list of Level 2 bus routes and their name abbreviations were slightly modified from the Level 1 screening versions.

Since the Bus/BRT alternatives in Group 1 were developed to serve two broad geographic travel markets, they were divided into two sub groups 1A and 1B. Alternatives serving the Mid-Hudson travel market, oriented to air travelers and employees destined to and from SWF from points north, south, east, and west of the region, were included in Group 1A. Alternatives serving the employment centers in northern New Jersey and Manhattan for both the SWF travelers and daily commuters were included in Group 1B. All Group 1A buses were assumed to be operating in mixed traffic along existing roads (I-84 or I-87) from point of origin to SWF. Buses in Group 1B were assumed to be running in mixed traffic along existing roads from the point of origin to I-87 in Suffern, NY where buses would then continue either in mixed traffic along I-87 or utilize dedicated BRT lanes along I-87. For the Airport Market the routing to/from I-84/I-87 and SWF would be via the existing I-84/Rt. 747 interchange. For both the Airport and Commuter markets, all Bus/ BRT alternatives serving points to and from the south would utilize a newly constructed bus only ramp off I-87 in the vicinity of Route 207. (Several bus-only ramp options were considered to provide a more direct access to SWF from I-87 south resulting in reduced travel time, see Section 4.4.1 for details). For the Commuter Market, the Bus/BRT routes would serve an expanded Route 17K park


4-2 Alternatives Analysis Phase I Screening Report

and ride facility in Newburgh via Route 300. As appropriate, park and ride facilities were considered at key locations along bus routes for each alternative.

For each alternative, an assessment was made regarding whether a surface parking facility or a parking structure would be required based on space constraints. For comparison and analysis purposes, each park and ride facility for the alternatives was assumed to have capacity for 1,000 cars. Actual capacity requirements for a given bus route would be determined in subsequent phases of the study.

The following provides a summary description for each of the five groups of alternatives with the associated service plans, environmental assessment, costs, and travel times.

4.1.1 Direct Bus Routes - Mid-Hudson Region Alternatives (Group 1A)

Direct bus routes serving the Airport Market were considered from the following origins in the greater Mid-Hudson region (see Figure 4-1a for schematic routes and Figure 4-1b for route details in vicinity of SWF):

B-XN - Kingston, NY to the north via I-87 with park and ride lots at Kingston and New Paltz

B-XE - Danbury, CT to the east via I-84 with park and ride facilities at Danbury, Brewster, and Fishkill

B-XW - Sussex, NJ to the west via I-84 with park and ride facilities at Sussex and Middletown

B-XS - Suffern, NY to the south via I-87 with park and ride facilities at Suffern and Harriman

Service Plan

For this analysis it was assumed that buses would operate from 4:00 AM to 10:00 PM at approximately 30 minute intervals. This level of service was developed based on similar headways serving other airports around the country. However, initial implementation and lower frequency of service could be considered in the short-term based on airport demand (for service plan details see Appendix C).

Figure 4-1a Group 1A Alternatives (Schematic)

Mai

n-B

erge

n C

ount

y Li

ne



Figure 4-1b Group 1A Alternatives (detail)



Capital and O&M Costs

The estimated capital costs for each of the Group 1A alternatives are as follows:

B-XN - Kingston, NY to the north - $28 Million

B-XE - Danbury, CT to the east - $39 Million

B-XW - Sussex, NJ to the west - $28 Million

B-XS - Suffern, NY to the south - $94 Million (includes new $66 million bus ramp connecting I-87 with Rt. 207; see Section 4.1.2 for bus ramp considerations)

For each alternative, an assessment was made regarding whether a surface parking facility or a parking structure would be required based on space constraints. The facility cost for a 1,000-space surface parking facility was estimated at $5 million. This was based upon an assumption of 300 SF per vehicle, yielding a 300,000 SF paved facility. Site work improvements were estimated based upon $10SF for pavement and $2 million dollars for facilities, lighting, fencing, and systems. The 1,000 space parking facilities were assumed for comparison and analysis purposes only. Actual space requirements would be determined based on need and demand.

Estimated costs included the following components: Park and ride facilities, curb side at SWF, rolling stock (equipment) and bus maintenance facility share. The largest component of the capital cost in this group was attributed to the park and ride facility.

The O&M costs estimated for Group 1A ranged from $3 to $4 million using the revenue hour method for long haul travel service (see Appendix D for capital and O&M cost methodologies and cost breakdowns).

Travel Time

The average travel time for buses in this group range from 45 minutes to 55 minutes depending on the bus route (for details see Section C1.7 in Appendix C).

4.1.2 Direct Bus/BRT Alternatives - from South (Group 1B)

The Bus/BRT alternatives included a variety of infrastructure improvements to result in a fast and reliable bus service between SWF and the south. The most capital intensive of these alternatives was a busway incorporated into I-87 between Suffern and New Windsor. Direct Bus/BRT routes serving both airport and commuter markets were considered from the following locations (see Figure 4-2a for schematic routes and Figure 4-2b for route details in vicinity of SWF):

B-XC - Stamford, CT via I-287/I-87 with a park and ride facility at Stamford (serving the Airport Market only)

B-XWP - White Plains, NY via I-287/I-87 with a park and ride facility at White Plains (serving the Airport Market only)

B-XM - Midtown, NYC via Garden State Parkway/I-287/I-87 with an expanded Route 17K park and ride facility (serving both airport and commuter markets)

B-XG - George Washington Bridge Bus Station, NYC via Garden State Parkway/I-287/I-87 with expanded Route 17K park and ride facility (serving both airport and commuter markets)

B-XH - Hoboken, NJ via Garden State Parkway/I-287/I-87 with an expanded Route 17K park and ride facility (serving both airport and commuter markets)



B-XP and BX-P Paterson, NJ via Route 17/I-87 with a stop at Ramsey Route 17 and an expanded Route 17K park and ride facility (serving both airport and commuter markets)

B-HXA - Hackensack, NJ via Route 17/I-87 with an interim stop at Ridgewood train station and expanded Route 17K park and ride facility (serving both airport and commuter markets)

Figure 4-2a Group 1B Alternatives (Schematic)

A dedicated busway along approximately 30 miles of I-87 from Suffern, NY to SWF was defined as the BRT Alternative to serve all buses traveling to/from the south. Two busway options were evaluated. One option (B-C1) considered placing the busway in the median (Figure 4-3a) of I-87 utilizing the available space between the existing north and south bound lanes. Most of the median width was determined to be sufficient for an at-grade BRT lane configuration. However, modification of over 30 bridge structures would be required to widen them for the dedicated busway. A second option (B-C2) considered a dedicated busway along the right side shoulders of I-87 (see Figure 4-3b), where it would require widening the roadway to the outside of the existing north and south bound lanes. The right shoulder BRT option requires significantly more retained cut and retained fill along I-87 resulting in much higher costs than the median option. Therefore, for analysis purposes, BRT lanes included in the Group 1B alternatives were considered to be in the median from Suffern to Route 207.

Mai

n-B

erge

Cou

nty

Line



Figure 4-2b Group 1B Alternatives (detail)



Service Plan

Similar to the bus services in Group 1A, bus service for the Airport Market in Group 1B would operate from 4 AM to 10 PM at approximately 30 minute intervals. However, for the Commuter Market, the headways would range from 20 minutes to 120 minutes depending on direction and time of day (see Appendix C for details). As with Group 1A, initial implementation and reduced frequency of service could be considered in the short-term, subject to airport demand.


As with Group 1A, park and ride facilities were assumed to be 1,000-space surface parking capacity estimated at $5 million at the designated locations. For the Commuter Market, it is assumed that commuters would utilize an expanded Route 17K Park and Ride facility in Newburgh.

Figure 4-3a BRT Busway in Median

Figure 4-3b BRT Busway in Shoulder (single direction shown)



The capital cost assessed for the Group 1B alternatives range between $75 million to $91 million. This cost includes the new $66 million bus ramp connecting I-87 with Rt. 207 (see bus-only ramp considerations in this Chapter). It is assumed that if more than one bus alternative is implemented, the cost associated with the bus ramp would be shared among the multiple selected alternatives. The capital cost for the BRT alternatives range between $2 billion (Median Alignment) and $3.5 billion (Shoulder Alignment).

The O&M costs assessed for Group 1B ranged from $3 to $7 million depending on markets served; the revenue hour method was used for long-haul travel service (see Appendix D for capital and O&M cost methodologies and cost breakdowns).

Travel Time

The average travel time for Group 1B alternatives range from 75 minutes to 115 minutes depending on the bus route and time of day. The average travel time for BRT would range between 85 and 100 minutes (for details, see Section C1.7 in Appendix C).

4.1.3 Direct Commuter Rail Alternatives (Group 2)

The direct CRT alternatives considered in the Level 2 screening process considered a one-seat ride to Manhattan and Hoboken via a commuter rail service that would operate along the PJL/MBCL, connecting to a newly constructed branch in the vicinity of the Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station that would extend about 4 to 5 miles to the north and terminate in the vicinity of SWF.

Between the Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station and SWF Airport several alternative alignment options were considered. They were grouped into southern and northern segments that converge together at each end of the common middle segment.

The southern segment considered the following alignment options:

Relay Track

East Wye; and

West Wye,

The northern segment considered the following alignment options:

Aqueduct;

Breunig; and

Eastern

When combined, the different segment options form a total of nine different end-to-end alignment alternatives with local variations in horizontal and vertical geometry. The northern and southern segments are interchangeable and none of the southern segments precludes the use of any northern segment and vice versa. The following sections describe the individual segments and their characteristics in detail. All CRT alignments are entirely grade separated from existing roadways, which requires the use of bridge and tunnel structures to carry the rail tracks above or below existing roadways at several locations. A composite view of the CRT alternative alignments considered is shown on Figure 4-4.



Figure 4-4 Group 2 CRT Alignment Alternatives



4.1.3.1 Southern Segments

Both Wye alignment options provide direct, non-stop connections to the existing PJL in both the eastbound and westbound directions. However, the Relay Track option provides a direct non-stop connection in the eastbound direction only.

The Wye alignments were developed based on topographical and environmental constrains. North of the Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station, the East Wye would curve in an easterly direction while the West Wye Alignment would curve in westerly direction before they would reach a common segment further to the north. A schematic plan of the East and West Wye alignments is shown on Figure 4-5.

Figure 4-5 Schematic of Relay Track and Wye Alignment Options

The Relay Track

The Relay Track configuration would be located near Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station. Although, it would provide a direct non-stop eastbound connection to and from SWF, it would require trains from SWF to stop on a stub-ended track to reverse direction to travel west on the PJL. Similarly, trains originating west of Salisbury Mills-Cornwall heading east to SWF would be subject to similar time consuming operations to reverse direction on the Relay Track before heading east.



The alignment begins just west of the existing State Route 94 under-grade bridge on the PJL. Here a turnout would be placed on the PJL with the diverting leg aligned to the proposed outbound tracks. A universal crossover is placed between the existing PJL and the proposed SWF branch. This universal crossover serves multiple purposes as follows:

Enables trains to board and disembark passengers from designated inbound and outbound platforms eliminating confusion to which platform a train would be accessible

Creates a passing siding on the PJL

Connects the Relay Track to the PJL

The Relay Track Alignment could be constructed on embankment and through open-cut sections until the vertical profile reaches a point 42 feet below the existing ground level. At that point, the proposed Relay Track Alignment would be identical to the proposed East Wye Alignment traveling north. (For track configuration and schematic diagrams see Rail Alternatives Conceptual Engineering Report – Gannett Fleming, April 2010).

East Wye

This alignment has two legs connecting to the PJL: an east double-track leg and a west single-track leg. These legs merge just south of Jackson Avenue. The east leg would primarily be used for revenue service between SWF and destinations south of Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station, while the west leg’s primary function would be connecting the proposed branch to existing and future maintenance storage facilities west of Salisbury Mills-Cornwall. The total length along the east leg from the tie in with the PJL to the common point of the northern segments is 11,500 feet or approximately 2.2 miles. Due to topography, the track curvature of the East Wye would require speed restrictions between 35 mph and 45 mph. The maximum effective gradient used on this alignment does not exceed 1.5%.

In connecting to the PJL, each leg of the Wye alternatives would converge with the existing geometry in straight segments of existing track to meet Metro-North Track Design Criteria. This requires the west leg to parallel the existing PJL for a short distance. The west leg would parallel the existing PJL through the Lake Road overhead bridge and across Beaver Dam Run. Further analysis of structural capacity and clearance would be required should this alignment be pursued. The east leg initially diverts from the PJL approximately 3,000 feet north of the Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station. The east and west leg join together just south of Jackson Avenue. The west leg connects to the southbound track with the west leg aligned to the diverting side of the turnout. At this merger and traveling north towards SWF, a tunnel structure under Jackson Avenue would be required because the proposed vertical profile of the right-of-way would be greater than 42 feet below the existing ground line. An aerial crossing over Jackson Avenue is not practical given the steep descent of the existing topography north of Jackson Avenue along the proposed alignment. The remainder of the East Wye Alignment is relatively close to the existing ground and could be constructed in either open cut or on embankment sections.

Traveling north of Jackson Avenue the alignment passes around wetlands and a large hill by utilizing reverse or ‘S’ shaped horizontal curves. This curvature is necessary to minimize environmental impacts and earthwork as much as possible. The alignment would also cross under existing aerial power lines as it travels north from Jackson Avenue. From the base mapping, and through preliminary field inspections, it appears this crossing would be possible without modifications to the aerial lines and supporting structures. However, further investigation would be required should this alignment be pursued.



West Wye

Similar to the East Wye, the West Wye alternative connection with the existing PJL would converge with the existing geometry in tangent or straight segments of existing tracks to meet Metro-North Track Design Criteria. The locations of proposed turnouts on the existing PJL are identical in the East and West Wye alternatives. However, unlike the East Wye, the east leg would parallel the existing PJL for a short distance through the existing horizontal curve before diverting away from the existing right-of-way. In addition, the west leg of the West Wye would run parallel to the existing PJL for a shorter distance in comparison to the East Wye. It would divert from the existing right-of-way further west, but still utilizing the existing Lake Road overhead bridge. The total length along the east leg from the tie in with the PJL to the common point with the northern segments is approximately 2.5 miles.

Due to topography, the West Wye would require more support structures than the East Wye.

4.1.3.2 Northern Segments1

The northern segments begin just south of the Catskill Aqueduct and Route 207. These segments consist of three main alignments with different termini in and around SWF. The northern segment alternatives, as listed earlier, are known as the Aqueduct Alignment; the Breunig Road Alignment; and the Eastern Alignment.

The Aqueduct Alignment crosses over, and then generally parallels, the east side of the Catskill Aqueduct up to International Boulevard. This alignment considers two options; one, terminating at Balsam Road south of International Boulevard (Aqueduct Balsam with a Balsam Station), and the other continues under the roadway through a sharp horizontal curve paralleling Reed Street, terminating near the SWF terminal (Aqueduct Reed with a Reed Street Station). There are multiple vertical profiles for this alignment, depending on which terminus is chosen.

The Breunig Road Alignment crosses over the aqueduct but continues on to parallel Breunig Road along the west side of the roadway eventually stopping near the SWF terminal. The vertical profile for this alignment could vary if an elevated or depressed corridor is chosen to parallel Breunig Road. The elevated or depressed profiles are required to cross existing roads that currently intersect with Breunig Road from the west.

The Eastern Alignment follows Breunig Road until its approach to Route 207. This alignment then diverts to the east of SWF while the other two are primarily west of the existing SWF terminal. This alignment terminates near Silver Stream Road on the site of an existing landfill next to I-87. All of the northern segments avoid a private cemetery on the Sisters of Saint Joseph property just south of the intersection with the Catskill Aqueduct. These alignments are described in more details below (see Figure 4-6 for more detail on alignment locations).

1 The Breunig Road alignment and the Aqueduct alignment were considered at described locations for analysis purposes only. Implementation of any rail alignment in the airport area is dependent on future conditions, including the development of SWF and the land to the west of it in the Town of New Windsor. The alignment swill be further developed in Phase II with the understanding that they could change in the future as development plans evolve.



Figure 4-6 Northern Segments

Aqueduct Alignment:

The Aqueduct Alignment is so named since it parallels the Catskill Aqueduct for the majority of its length, running in the right-of-way of former Jackson Avenue north of Rt. 207. The type of construction used in the area parallel to the proposed alignment was cut and cover with unreinforced concrete walls and a nominal cover depth of three feet (for details on the Aqueduct see Rail Alternatives Conceptual Engineering Report – Gannett Fleming, April 2010).

Travelling north from the common point with the southern segments, the alignment passes to the east of the previously mentioned private cemetery and then crosses the aqueduct. The aqueduct crossing begins a 1,500 foot-long section of aerial guideway after crossing Hudson Valley Avenue.

Based on input received from NYCDEP, the required minimum vertical clearance over the aqueduct is seven feet to allow vegetation control equipment to pass under the railroad structure. After crossing the aqueduct, the alignment traverses a large depression in the existing topography before crossing Route 207, and then crosses over Hudson Valley Avenue. The alignment would need to remain on aerial guideway throughout this section to provide sufficient vertical clearance at road crossings and the aqueduct while abiding to the grade limitations of the Metro-North Track Design Criteria.



The total length of this alignment from the common point with the southern segments to the termination at Balsam Road is approximately 1.7 miles. This alignment also considers a possible extension from Balsam Road to Reed Street, which would place it closer to the existing SWF terminal. This extension is approximately 0.4 miles, for a total length of approximately 2.1 miles from its common point with the southern segments. The alignment avoids encroachment on the aqueduct right-of-way as much as possible. Retaining walls would be required where limits of embankment or open-cut sections would otherwise encroach on the right-of-way.

The alignment has two different vertical profiles. The Balsam profile is generally at existing grade and stops south of International Boulevard. The Reed profile is depressed in order to allow for a future below-grade crossing with International Boulevard. An above-grade crossing with International Boulevard is not practical as it would create an excessively high aerial guideway along Reed Street due to the rapid decrease in elevation of the existing topography along the alignment north of International Boulevard. The Balsam vertical profile precludes further extension to Reed Street as it is not low enough to cross under International Boulevard. However, this option is significantly less costly as it entails more balanced earthwork quantities and less surface area of retaining walls.

The Reed profile, which allows for possible future extension to a Reed Street Station, includes demolition of the platforms at Balsam Station and new high level platforms at Reed Street. The platforms are located just west of Breunig Road, 140 feet from the end of the tracks, thereby eliminating layover tracks beyond the end of platform. Layover tracks are not possible in this configuration as it would require extensive roadway reconfigurations.

Breunig Alignment

The Breunig Road Alignment parallels Breunig Road after crossing the aqueduct and Route 207. This alignment is the most direct rail option to the terminal. The total length for this alignment from the common point with the other segments is approximately 1.5 miles. In the area where the alignment parallels Breunig Road, there are two vertical profile options. These include an elevated and a depressed profile that are both grade separated from cross streets that intersect Breunig Road from the west. This alignment considers two high level platforms for the station, inbound and outbound.

The alignment passes to the east of the private cemetery previously mentioned. Just north of the cemetery, it diverges from the Aqueduct Alignment as it crosses the aqueduct closer to a perpendicular angle and takes a more direct heading toward SWF. The following sections describe each of the vertical profile options individually.

Elevated Vertical Profile

The elevated vertical profile is characterized by a long continuous, aerial guideway starting at the aqueduct crossing. The elevated vertical profile extends the aerial guideway previously discussed after crossing over Route 207 to the terminus.

Depressed Vertical Profile

After crossing Route 207 on aerial guideway, this option then enters a section on embankment. This fill section continues until the alignment passes below the existing grade where it enters a cut section. The maximum effective grade for this option is 1.5%. The alignment enters the trench where cast-in-place concrete retaining walls border the corridor as it parallels Breunig Road.



Eastern Alignment

This alignment option is the longest of the three northern segments. The total length for this alignment from the common point with the other segments is approximately 2.3 miles. At the end of this curvature, the alignment crosses Breunig Road. The crossings at the Aqueduct, Route 207, and Breunig Road would all be above grade and part of one continuous aerial guideway. After crossing Breunig Road, this alignment passes through an area identified by the Port Authority for the potential Runway 34 extension. The alignment is above the existing topography in this area but would actually be contained in tunnel below grade if the runway were extended. The alignment continues east towards I- 87 with a proposed park and ride and a station located in the area of existing land fill near Silver Stream Road.

Because of the alignment’s proximity to the end of the existing runway and to preserve options for the potential extension of that runway, the rail alignment was reviewed in light of relevant FAA restrictions. These included conformance with regulations for a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), or the runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ), as well as the Runway Safety Area (RSA), and Object Free Area (OFA). FAA design standards require the proposed OFA for Runway 34 to be 1,000-feet in length, 800-feet wide, and free of all objects not essential for air navigation or ground maneuvering. The proposed rail line is within the aforementioned RSA and OFA of Runway 34 and cannot be located at-grade. However, a tunnel underneath the graded RSA spanning the entire width of the runway OFA could satisfy the FAA requirement. Service Plan

The CRT service plan, referred to as “Base Build” assumed a significant increase in the number of total daily trains compared to the WHRTAS No-Build Alternative. The service plan assumed implementation of the ARC project, consistent with the then-current applicable regional transportation plans. This additional service would be added in the off-peak periods and in the reverse peak direction in the AM and PM peak periods. The Base Build Service Plan (Base Scenario) assumes 11 peak period trains south of Salisbury Mills-Cornwall (SMC) Station of which 5 originate from SWF and 6 from Port Jervis (see Figure C-1 and Table C-3 in Appendix C).

Since the CRT Base Build service plan may be too limited to provide convenient and adequate service for airport users, two additional rail service plan options were considered as “what if” scenarios and analyzed as sensitivity tests (for details see Section 4.4.2).


The assessed capital cost for Group 2 alternatives ranges from $610 to $840 million depending on alignment, type of construction, and market served. These costs are in addition to the cost of improvements associated with WHRTAS No Build, including double tracking of the PJL. In general, the cost includes $319 million for train equipment and a range of costs for guideways, signal and communication systems, and stations. For the Commuter Market, the cost also includes $50 million for a new park and ride facility (see Table 4-1).

Table 4-1 Capital Cost in Millions ($2009)

Alignment Airport Commuter

Eastern $840 $791

Breunig $712 $762

Aqueduct Balsam $610 $660

Aqueduct Reed $743 $793



The operating costs for Group 2 alternatives were developed by Metro-North. The costs reflect the incremental costing methodology set forth in the 2006 Metro-North/NJT Service Agreement, escalated to 2009 dollars and based on a rail network that includes ARC. These costs were estimated at $26 million annually above the No-Build Alternative (see Appendix D for complete details on methodologies, assumptions, capital cost and O & M cost breakdown).

Travel Time

Table 4-2 shows the overall length of each direct CRT alternative and the approximate travel time to reach Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station from the new terminus for the Aqueduct, Breunig and Eastern alignment options. The travel time does not include transfer and connecting service time to reach the SWF airport terminal for the Airport market.

Table 4-2 Direct CRT Alternative Lengths and Travel Times

Direct CRT Alignments and Options

Overall Length (Including East Wye to Salisbury Mills) (miles)

Travel Time to Salisbury Mills

(minutes)

Aqueduct Alignment Balsam 4.17 06:26

Reed 4.83 08:48

Breunig Road Alignment

Below Grade 4.26 06:06

Elevated 4.26 06:08

Eastern Alignment Silver Stream 4.64 07:29

The total estimated average travel times for Group 2 alternatives from 34th Street to SWF are shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Average Travel Time (minutes) Year 20352

Alignment Airport Commuter

Eastern 99 90

Breunig 88 88

Aqueduct Balsam 95 91

Aqueduct Reed 91 91 Travel time assumes an average of 82 minutes from 34th Street to Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station. For the Airport Market, the travel time for the Eastern and Aqueduct Balsam alignments include transfer and bus shuttle time to the terminal (see Tables C-4 and C-5 in appendix C for a complete summary of travel time estimates).

4.1.4 Hybrid Salisbury Mills Alternatives (Group 4)

The Hybrid CRT to Bus Alternative connecting Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station on the PJL to SWF includes two elements:

2 Results assume rail network includes ARC



1. CRT on the PJL to Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station 2. Bus or BRT between Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station and SWF

The connecting bus services would serve both the commuter and airport markets and be approximately 4.5 to 7 miles one-way (depending on the route) with no intermediate stops. The bus options would utilize existing roads between Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station and SWF and would operate in mixed traffic.

One option considers buses running east along Route 94, Bethlehem Road, Route 207, and Breunig Road. A second option assumes buses running west along Route 94, Station Road, Route 207, Route 747, and International Boulevard. For the Commuter Market, the bus route follows Route 207 and Route 300. The Commuter Market option includes an expanded park and ride facility at Route 17K. The Airport Market option does not include a park and ride facility.

The BRT option assumes a dedicated busway running along an alignment similar to that selected for the CRT Alternative between Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station and Route 207. The BRT option would then operate in mixed traffic along Route 207 and Breunig Road to SWF. The Commuter Market option considered a parking garage structure at SWF, while the Airport Market option does not include a park and ride facility. Figure 4-7 depicts the Group 4 route options considered for reaching SWF airport and the Route 17K park and ride.

Service Plan

As with Group 1A alternatives, buses would operate from 4:00 AM to 10:00 PM with service frequency to be coordinated with the commuter rail schedule on the PJL. The commuter rail service would be the same as the Base Build service described in the Group 2 Alternatives (see Appendix C for details).


The capital cost for bus options serving the Airport Market is estimated at $3 million, including equipment, bus maintenance facilities and minor improvements at SWF curb side. The BRT option serving the Airport Market is estimated at $118 million, predominately attributed to the busway cost. Both bus and BRT options for the Airport Market do not include a park and ride facility. The capital cost for the bus option serving the Commuter Market is estimated at $17 million, including approximately $15 million for the expansion of the existing 17K park and ride facility. The BRT option serving the Commuter Market is estimated at $146 million, including a new park and ride facility at Breunig Road.

The O&M cost for either market and bus option would range between $0.5 and $1.0 million annually (see Appendix D for capital and O&M cost breakdowns). Travel Time Total travel time for Group 4 alternatives would be 92 minutes for the BRT option. Total travel time for the bus option would range from 97 minutes for the Airport Market to 102 minutes for the Commuter Market. Travel time assumes a 4 minute transfer time and an average of 82 minutes travel from 34th Street to Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station (see Appendix C for additional travel time details). The travel time estimates assume implementation of ARC.



Figure 4-7 Hybrid Alternative Group 4



4.1.5 Hybrid Beacon Alternatives (Group 5)

Another Hybrid CRT to Bus Alternative connecting the Hudson Line Beacon Station with SWF includes:

1. CRT on the Hudson Line to Beacon Station 2. Bus options between Beacon Station and SWF

The bus options would include bus in mixed traffic and bus queue jump3, both of which would serve the airport and commuter markets. The connecting service would be approximately 8 to13 miles one-way with no intermediate stops.

The bus routes assumed buses running from the Beacon Metro-North station to SWF in mixed traffic along existing roads, including West Main Street, Beekman Street, Route 9D, I-84, and International Boulevard. For commuters, buses would exit I-84 at Route 300 to an expanded park and ride at Route 17K. No park and ride was assumed for the Airport Market. The queue jump option assumed buses using bus-only queue jump lanes in Beacon, including West Main Street, Beekman Street, and Route 9D, then in mixed traffic along I-84 and International Boulevard to SWF.

Similar to the regular bus routes, buses serving the Commuter Market include an expanded park and ride facility at Route 17K, and buses serving the Airport Market do not include a park and ride facility. Figure 4-8 depicts the Group 5 routes to reach SWF airport and the Route 17K park and ride facility.

Service Plan

As with Group 1A alternatives, buses would operate from 4:00 AM to 10:00 PM with service frequency to be coordinated with the commuter rail schedule on the Hudson Line. The service assumes no changes in the CRT segment for this alternative (see Appendix C).


The capital cost for buses serving the Airport Market is estimated at $6 million, which is comprised of the equipment, bus maintenance facility, and minor improvements at the SWF curb side. The capital cost for buses serving the Commuter Market is estimated at $18 million which includes about $15 million for the expansion of the existing Route 17K park and ride facility. The O&M cost for the bus segment is estimated at about $2 million annually for the Airport Market and $0.8 million for the Commuter Market. The O&M costs for CRT are not considered since it is existing service (see Appendix D for additional details about capital and O&M costs).

3 A queue jump is a type of roadway geometry that consists of an additional travel lane on the approach to a signalized intersection restricted to transit vehicles only. The intent of the lane is to allow buses to advance to the front of the queue, reducing the delay caused by the signal and improving the operational efficiency of the transit system. A queue jump lane is generally accompanied by a signal priority for vehicles within the lane. This would allow buses to merge into the regular lanes beyond the signal ahead of the vehicles queued in the general lanes.



Figure 4-8 Hybrid Alternative Group 5

Travel Time

The total travel times from Manhattan for Group 5 alternatives are estimated at 111 minutes for the Airport Market and 104 minutes for the Commuter Market. This estimate assumes an average of 83 minutes of travel from GCT to Beacon and a 4 minute transfer from the train to the bus at Beacon Station (for details of the travel time breakdown see Appendix C).



4.2 Screening Process

As noted in Chapter 2, the Level 1 Screening utilized a “Pass/Fail” method which focused on eliminating alternatives that do not meet the study’s goals and objectives or are determined not feasible based on existing conditions. In Level 2 screening, the remaining alternatives were developed in greater detail and evaluated against additional measures for the previously identified transportation, environmental and cost criteria. The Level 2 screening analysis assessed the performance of each alternative in achieving the study goals and objectives.

4.2.1 Level 2 screening measures

4.2.1.1 Transportation Criteria

Three key measures were added to the transportation criteria: ridership, travel time and transit mode share. Travel demand modeling was utilized to estimate potential ridership between central Orange County, including SWF, and the Mid-Hudson region and New York City. The ridership forecasts were also used to determine fleet size requirements, operating costs, revenue potential, and parking requirements. Travel time was utilized to estimate travel time savings of a new transit alternative, and transit mode share was used to assess the change in transit use compared to automobile use.

Travel patterns for three distinct segments of travelers were evaluated – commuters, air passengers, and airport employees. Forecasting the future use of transit service for all three segments required three different models. For forecasting commuter travel patterns, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) Best Practice Model (BPM) was utilized. An Airport Passenger Model was developed to forecast air passengers and a separate Airport Employee Model was developed to forecast employee trips, both of which were based on the Port Authority year 2035 forecast of 7 million4 annual passengers. Socioeconomic and demographic forecasts, developed by NYMTC for year 2035, were key inputs to both the BPM and the Airport Passenger models. The BPM contains highway and transit networks with detailed information on roadway classifications, number of lanes, transit route information, fares, and related data. A key input to the Airport Employee Model was the 2000 Census Journey-to-Work data for the regional airports. A further explanation of the travel demand and ridership forecasting methodologies, including the application of the BPM and the development of both the Airport Passenger and the Airport Employee models, is provided in Appendix F.

4 Port Authority supplied originating enplanement forecasts for 2035 for the six airports in the BPM region. Port Authority staff also provided a 2035 forecast for SWF of 7 million annual passengers, equally split between arriving and departing travelers. Port Authority and the WHRTAS team also posited a future flight schedule of domestic and international destinations and airfare assumptions potentially capable of attracting residents and visitors otherwise likely to use the region's other airports. These assumptions and time frame go beyond projections of SWF activity cited elsewhere by Port Authority. However, they are consistent with WHRTAS goals and objectives and Port Authority's SWF redevelopment strategy, which both recognize the relationship between enhanced transit access for SWF and its potential to emerge as a significant alternative for air travelers in the wider metropolitan region. This "aspirational" forecast of SWF volumes provides a sufficient base of potential users for the transit alternatives to support a meaningful analysis and comparison of the performance of the airport transit "build" alternatives. This approach supports long-term planning for sustainable SWF development by measuring the potential value of a SWF transit link to the PJL even beyond the WHRTAS AA time horizon, especially given expressed concern over the potential loss of rights-of-way to ongoing development in the area.



4.2.1.2 Cost Criteria

Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs were introduced for the Level 2 screening for Bus/BRT and direct commuter rail (CRT) alternatives. Key operating parameters considered were hours of operation, route length, route duration, and fleet size.

The broad ranges of capital costs estimated for the Level 1 screening were expanded and applied in greater detail, commensurate with the level of detail for each of the alternatives.

Operating and Maintenance Cost

The O&M cost estimates for bus alternatives were derived from FTA’s National Transit Database (NTD) data and applied to the service plan requirements using an annualized average cost per revenue hour. Depending on the distance of service, data from other sources, such as NJT and Orange County, were also used as they provide costs that more closely resemble some of the alternatives analyzed.

Bus routes were characterized as mid- or long-haul commuter type services, with two exceptions; the Salisbury Mills to Stewart and Beacon to Stewart routes which were characterized as short-haul bus services. The O&M costs were used to compare relative differences across all markets and all options with differing service plans. These estimates were also utilized in the bus portion of the hybrid rail/bus alternatives.

O&M costs for CRT were developed by Metro-North, reflecting an incremental costing methodology and based on the 2006 Metro-North/NJT Service Agreement. These costs were escalated to 2009 dollars.

Capital Cost

Capital costs developed for the Level 2 screening consisted of hard and soft costs from comparable projects applied to quantity approximations. The estimating methodology used was consistent with professionally accepted standards for preparing order-of-magnitude capital cost estimates at the initial alternative analysis stage.

To address uncertainties inherent with this level of analysis, appropriate contingencies were considered comprised of percentage mark-ups which varied based on the level of detail available by cost category.

Soft costs were applied to arrive at the Opinion of Probable Cost5 for each alternative after development of expected capital costs based upon quantity approximations, unit prices, and contingencies.

Soft cost add-ons represent the costs of engineering, project and construction management and administration, insurance, permits and fees, training/start-up/testing, and force account management and support work. These add-ons were calculated separately as a percentage of construction costs only, excluding vehicle procurement and right-of-way costs. Soft cost percentages were based on historical averages for projects of this type, which totaled 29.5%.

The capital cost estimates were based on underlying assumptions that were generally conservative because of the high level of uncertainty in background information available at the alternatives screening stage. For example, the base mapping used in the conceptual design was developed from multiple sources and has not been verified by field survey. For the purpose of the conceptual estimate, however,

5 Opinion of Probable Cost represents the informal opinion of most likely cost for construction of proposed project based on available data, However, future unknown factors (such as detail design parameters, equipment, material cost etc, can influence the project cost of the project.



the accuracy of the data was sufficient to develop order-of-magnitude costs to support decision making for the Level 2 screening.

For more details on methodology, key assumptions, and the overall framework used in the development of capital cost estimates for all the Bus/BRT and CRT alternatives, see Appendix D and the Capital Cost Estimation Methodology Report (Gannett Fleming, August 2009).

Capital Costs for Bus/BRT Alternatives

Unit costs for the Bus/BRT alternatives were developed based on prices assumed in the Tappan Zee Bridge /I-287 (TZB) Corridor Project. Since the TZB unit pricing were based on 2012 dollars, the unit prices in WHRTAS were adjusted downward by 4% per year for 3 years to be consistent with 2009 dollar pricing assumed throughout this Study.

Assumptions were based on the proposed service operating plan, the transit system type, support facilities, and expected construction techniques. In general, the capital costs for the Bus/BRT alternatives include the following:

‐ Equipment;

‐ Pro-rated share of a bus maintenance facility;

‐ Upgrades to the SWF curb side (airport market routes);

‐ Route 17K park and ride expansion (commuter market routes);

‐ One or more park and ride lots depending on the specific route (as applicable);

‐ Bus lanes, structures, intersection modifications, traffic signal upgrades (as applicable);

‐ Right-of-way for bus lanes and new park and ride lots (as applicable); and

‐ Environmental mitigation allowance (as applicable).

Capital Costs for CRT Alternatives

Assumptions were based on the proposed service operating plan, the transit system type, support facilities, and expected construction techniques.

In general, the CRT alternative capital costs include the following:

‐ Equipment;

‐ Track and structures;

‐ Signal system;

‐ Stations

‐ Park and ride facilities; and

‐ Environmental mitigation allowance (as applicable).

Operating plan and fleet size estimates were developed and provided by Metro-North; unit costs for locomotives, passenger coaches, and cab cars were based on recent equipment purchases by NJT. It is assumed that the additional equipment needed to operate the service would be maintained at existing, expanded, or new maintenance facilities.



4.2.1.3 Environmental Criteria

The Level 2 environmental analysis focused on the environmental resources within the Project Limits and included the following potential impact areas.

Land use

Socioeconomics

Natural resources

Cultural resources

Parklands

Air resources

Noise

Energy

Public Services and Utilities

The use of these environmental criteria is based on the knowledge of existing conditions which are noted in Chapter 1 and Appendix A. Given the number of alternatives, the criteria were applied at a high level, with more detailed analysis to occur in Phase II. This assessment is further described in Appendix E.

4.2.2 Level 2 Screening Approach

Specific qualitative and quantitative screening criteria were developed consistent with the project goals and objectives. For the Level 2 Screening, the basic screening categories of transportation, environmental, and cost were expanded to include more specific measures such as transit ridership; changes in transit mode share; greater detail on potential environmental impacts; and development of preliminary capital and operating and maintenance costs.

A matrix of the Level 2 performance measures that indicates the measure type (qualitative or quantitative), the target market (commuter or airport), and timeframes (short-term, mid-term or long-term) is provided in Table 4-4. The qualitative measures rate the alternatives on a five part scale that ranges from -2 to +2 informed by professional judgment. A rating of +2 is strongly positive; +1 is somewhat positive; 0 is neutral; -1 is somewhat negative; and -2 is strongly negative. The quantitative measures are represented with numerical results, such as ridership, demographics, and quantities of various impacts, percentages, and dollars. There are a total of 34 individual Level 2 screening measures, of which 10 are qualitative and 24 are quantitative.



Table 4-4 Level 2 Screening Performance Measures

Goal/Objective

Screening Measures Units/

Rating System

Airport Market Commuter Market

Short-Term1

Mid-Term1

Long-Term1

Short-Term1

Mid-Term1

Long-Term1

Goal 1: Improve commuter transit access and mobility between Central Orange County and New York City.

1.1 Reduced travel time Change in transit travel time between Central Orange County and New York City

Time saved in minutes

X X X

1.2 Increased frequency of service Frequency of service Headways X X X

1.3 Improved schedule reliability Reliability of mode Rating -2 to +2 X X X

1.4 Increased operational flexibility and expandability Ability to adjust service levels to meet market demand

Rating -2 to +2 X X X

1.5 Improved station accessibility

Existing & future population within 6 miles of proposed stations

Average population

X X X

Existing & future employment within 6 miles of proposed stations

Average employment

X X X

1.6 Maximum use of existing infrastructure Integration with and use of existing infrastructure


1.7 Increased transit mode share

Increase in transit mode share in markets served

Percentage X X X

Total transit commuter ridership in the Stewart District

Number X X X

Total transit commuter ridership at proposed Park and Ride

Number X X X

Goal 2: Provide transit options for access to/from SWF as demand grows over time to serve the needs of air travelers, employees, and others in the Mid-Hudson and New York City markets.

2.1 Competitive travel time and cost

Change in transit travel time between origin and SWF compared to existing transit

Average time in minutes

X X X

Increase in transit mode share for air passengers in study markets

Percentage X X X

Total transit air passenger and airport employee ridership

Number X X X

2.2 Consistent with SWF market strategy Opportunities for future airport market development


2.3 Consistent with SWF near-term, mid-term, and long-term infrastructure and operations

Opportunities for future airport infrastructure development




Table 4-4 Level 2 Screening Performance Measures (con’t)

Goal/Objective


Rating System

Airport Market Commuter Market

Short-Term1

Mid-Term1

Long-Term1

Short-Term1

Mid-Term1

Long-Term1

Goal 3: Contribute to the attainment of regional and local environmental goals.

3.1 Improved air quality Increase in transit mode share in study markets Percentage X X X X X X

3.2 Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions Increase in transit mode share in study markets Percentage X X X X X X

3.3 Protection of human and natural resources

Ability to avoid major adverse impacts on the natural environment

Major stream crossings and wetlands Number/Area X X X X X X

Protected and endangered species and critical habitat

Rating -2 to +2 X X X X X X

Increase in stormwater runoff Area in square feet X X X X X X

Ability to avoid major adverse impacts on the built environment

Displacements to residences, businesses, and institutions

Number of displacements

X X X X X X

Noise sensitive receptors located along the alternative’s alignment

Number of receptors

X X X X X X

Impacts to designated property containing contaminated or hazardous materials

Number of listed hazardous

materials sites X X X X X X

Impacts to significant infrastructure Amount of significant

infrastructure X X X X X X

Parklands, historic districts, sites, and archaeological resources

Number of sites X X X X X X

3.4 Balance of project burdens and benefits in Environmental Justice communities

Benefits to low income populations within ½ mile of proposed stations

Percentage X X X X X X

Benefits to minority populations within ½ mile of proposed stations:


Number of displacements and other adverse impacts in Environmental Justice communities:

Number X X X X X X

3.5 Reduced energy consumption Increase in transit mode share in study markets:




Table 4-4 Level 2 Screening Performance Measures (con’t)

Goal/Objective


Rating System Airport Market Commuter Market

Goal 4: Support smart residential and economic growth in SWF area, Orange County, and the Region

4.1 Support of adopted local and regional land use and economic development plans and policies

Consistency with local land use TOD plans and policies


Potential to support transit-oriented development


4.2 Coordination with interfacing projects and initiatives at the local, regional, and state level

Compatibility with planned transportation, economic development, and environmental initiatives


Goal 5: Improve efficiency, convenience and integration of transportation services.

5.1 Efficient fare collection and cost structure Preliminary Capital Cost Dollars X X X X X X

Preliminary Operations and Maintenance Costs

Dollars X X X X X X

5.2 Coordinated services and schedules across modes of both public and private operators

Ease of integration with planned local bus routes


1Short-term is 2012-2016; Mid-term is 2017-2025; Long-term is 2035



4.2.2.1 Measures and Assumptions

The following provide details on each of these measures, how they were applied and assumptions made.

4.2.2.1.1 Goal 1 - Access and Mobility

Goal 1 is to improve commuter transit access and mobility between Central Orange County and the major employment centers to the south. The measures for each Goal 1 objective are described below.

Reduced travel time – Measure 1.1

Measure(s)

Change in transit travel time between Central Orange County and New York City: Considers transit travel times estimated for the Commuter Market to/from Manhattan in the Build alternatives compared to the WHRTAS No-Build Alternative. Each Build alternative was rated according to its potential to achieve time savings or whether the estimated travel time would be less than the WHRTAS No-Build. Travel times for the existing condition were based on published schedules. For the future WHRTAS No-Build Alternative travel time was based on the adopted Long Range Regional Transportation Plan (which included ARC), with additional input provided by Metro-North and Port Authority. Travel times for the Build alternatives were based on the alignments, station locations, and operating plans developed by the project team in consultation with Metro-North, Port Authority, and other stakeholders.

The travel time measures for a typical transit commuter assumes end-to-end journey time from home to place of work. This includes time to access the transit station from home, transfer at the station to the transit vehicle, time on the transit vehicle (in-vehicle time), and the time to travel between the transit station and place of work (final destination).

Transit travel time savings were measured for the typical commuter trip between Central Orange County and the Manhattan CBD for the horizon year 2035. The Manhattan CBD is assumed to be the area south of 59th Street. The savings were calculated relative to the WHRTAS No-Build Alternative.

For the analysis, Central Orange County was defined as the “Stewart District” (See Section F3 in Appendix F). The Stewart District is comprised of zones within an approximately 6 mile radius around SWF. However, since the zones in the vicinity of SWF are large, the coverage area of some zones extends up to 10 miles.

The rationale for selecting the zones that comprise the Stewart District was as follows:

1. Maximum drive time to a transit station from any zone within the district should not exceed about 15 minutes. This was considered reasonable given the entire trip to Manhattan is about 90 minutes.

2. Zones that cover areas east of the Hudson River were not included. It is assumed that a small number of east of Hudson residents would take transit from SWF,

3. Includes Salisbury Mills and Campbell Hall stations. It is expected that most of diversions to SWF station would be from these two stations.

4. Includes area north of I-84 in Orange County, including the Village of Walden.

For CRT and bus alternatives, the travel time savings were estimated only for transit trips that occur in the No-Build Alternative regardless of length. Travel time savings were estimated by taking the difference in



overall travel time (end-to-end journey) between the Build Alternative compared to the No-Build Alternative, and then weighting the travel time savings to account for trips diverted from other modes.

Example: A No-Build Alternative Commuter Market transit trip from the Stewart District may consist of a 20 minute auto access from home to the existing Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station on the PJL, followed by 82 minutes on the commuter train to 34th Street and a 10 minute walk to work. In the CRT Build Alternative the transit trip time might be a 10 minute drive from home to a new commuter rail station at SWF, followed by 88 minutes on the commuter train to 34th Street and the same 10 minute walk to work. The total No-Build trip time is 112 minutes compared to 108 minutes in the Build condition, a travel time savings of 3 minutes. If the Build Alternative were to include improvements along the PJL between SMC and Suffern that result in additional reductions in travel time, such benefits would be added resulting in greater travel time savings .

Trip Link No-Build Travel Time Build Travel Time

Access time to CRT station (example) 20 min. 10 min.

CRT in-vehicle time to 34th Street Station 82 min 88 min

Walk time from Penn Station (example) 10 min 10 min

Total 112 min 108 min Note: Travel Time estimates assume ARC

Increased frequency of service - Measure 1.2

Measure(s)

Frequency of service: High frequency service is more attractive to potential transit users because it reduces average wait time. To the extent possible, all Level 2 alternatives would use consistent service frequencies, particularly during the weekday AM and PM Peak Periods, and this measure would evaluate the ability of each alternative to provide and reliably sustain high frequency service. For bus and BRT service the operating plans assume same frequency in both directions throughout the day, whereas the CRT alternatives provide high frequency service to/from Manhattan in the AM and PM peak periods and lower frequency in the off peak hours.

For CRT alternatives, the frequency was provided by Metro-North in cooperation with Port Authority and NJT. For the bus and BRT alternatives, the frequency was established based on comparable commuter express bus service schedules in the New York metropolitan region.

Improved schedule reliability - Measure 1.3

Measure(s)

Reliability of mode: A qualitative measure based on the reliability of the alternative compared to the No-Build and TSM alternatives. An alternative would be more reliable if it were to operate within a dedicated right-of-way than if it were to operate within mixed traffic.

CRT alternatives have a fully dedicated right-of-way along the entire length of the route and are generally less affected by weather than buses. The BRT alternative considered along I-87 operates in exclusive right-of-way (or busway) only in the segment north of Suffern which is less than 50% of its entire route length. The remainder of the service operates in mixed traffic south of Suffern. Bus alternatives do not have exclusive right-of-way and operate entirely in mixed traffic with the lowest level of reliability,



especially in corridors with heavy traffic congestion. Hybrid alternatives that combine CRT with a short connecting service are nearly as reliable as full CRT, but require a transfer and dependence on buses.

Increased operational flexibility and expandability - Measure 1.4

Measure(s)

Ability to adjust service levels to meet market demand: Transit demand can increase or decrease over time. This measure will assess how flexible the alternative is to meet such changes in demand.

Bus services have the greatest flexibility to adjust service levels because the vehicles and labor are relatively low cost to purchase or lease on short notice, and they can operate over a wide variety of routes, which can be adjusted easily and quickly. BRT vehicles have similar flexibility to adjust service levels within existing routes but, permanent re-routing or new BRT routes could require construction of new busway and other BRT infrastructure. CRT, while highly reliable, and having the greatest expansion potential, is less flexible and takes longer to add service within existing infrastructure. CRT is limited to existing rail lines and results in higher costs and longer lead times to add or subtract service.

Improved station accessibility - Measure 1.5

Measure(s)

Existing & future population within a six (6) mile radius of proposed stations: Considers the total population served by each of the alternatives based on the average of the existing and future population for census blocks within a six (6) mile radius of the proposed transit stations.

Existing & future employment within a six (6) mile radius of proposed stations: Considers the total employment served by each of the alternatives based on the average of the existing and future employment for census blocks within a six (6) mile radius of the proposed transit stations.

The six (6) mile radius was chosen as the catchment area because the candidate station locations are primarily drive access, and travel market analysis in the corridor indicates that 6-10 miles is a typical drive distance to existing Metro-North commuter rail stations on the PJL. For purposes of the analysis the drive distance to existing express bus park and ride is assumed to be similar to that for CRT. The low end of the range (6 miles) was chosen because potential demand lessens with distance from the park and ride, regardless of mode.

Maximum use of existing infrastructure - Measure 1.6

Measure(s)

Integration with and use of existing infrastructure: A qualitative measure that considers the degree to which an alternative utilizes existing infrastructure and its existing capacity compared to alternatives that rely primarily on new infrastructure and capacity expansion.

Example: The CRT Alternative would utilize existing rail system infrastructure for the route between SMC and Manhattan and about 4 miles of new infrastructure between SMC and SWF. The BRT alternatives would require construction of about 30 miles of new bus only lanes on the I-87 for all of the alignment north of Suffern, NY.



Increased transit mode share - Measure 1.7

Measure(s)

Increase in transit mode share in markets served: A quantitative measure of percentage of total trips taken by transit. The change in AM peak period mode share for each Build Alternative will be compared to the No-Build Alternative for the Stewart District (approximately six miles around SWF).

Total transit commuter ridership in the Stewart District: A quantitative measure of the ability of the alternative to attract and maintain ridership for trips between the Stewart District and the Manhattan. The measure was expressed in average daily weekday ridership in the forecast year 2035.

Total transit commuter ridership at proposed Park and Ride: A quantitative measure to estimate the total daily ridership in year 2035 at the proposed P&R locations. Demand for the park and ride stations considered the AM Peak Period boardings as an indication of commuter demand.

4.2.2.2 Goal 2 - Transit Options for SWF

Goal 2 is to provide transit options for access to and from SWF as demand grows over time to serve the needs of air travelers, employees, and others in the Mid-Hudson and New York City markets. The performance measures that were used to evaluate how well each alternative would meet the Goal 2 objectives are described below.

Competitive travel time and cost - Measure 2.1

Measure(s)

Change in transit travel time between origin and SWF compared to existing transit: Measures the change in transit travel time between Manhattan and SWF for each Build Alternative compared to the No-Build Alternative. Travel times were based on previous studies and an understanding of future travel conditions within the region. The alternatives were compared to the No-Build Alternative AM peak period in the 2035 design year. Competitive cost to the transit user is measured within the forecasting model by considering factors such as fares, parking, convenience, and the dollar value of travel time saved.

Trips between the Manhattan CBD to SWF are used for this measure because that market has some transit service today. Alternative routes from the east, north, and west to SWF are not currently served by transit, and therefore, were not compared to the No-Build Alternative. For the alternative routes to the east, north, and west, the estimated Build travel times were used, and it is assumed they do not experience the congestion levels of roadways to the south of SWF,

Example 1: A No-Build Alternative Airport Market bus transit trip from Manhattan CBD to SWF may consist of a 10 minute walk or ride from home or business to the Port Authority Bus Terminal and a 115 minute express bus to the Route 17K park and ride lot in Newburgh followed by a 15 minute shuttle bus ride to the SWF terminal for a total trip of 150 minutes with an assumed wait time of about 10 minutes. (However, the wait time could be significantly longer since it is not a timed transfer to the shuttle). In the BRT Build Alternative, the transit trip time might be the same 10 minute access time to the Port Authority Bus Terminal followed by an 89 minute travel time with a direct connection to SWF. This results in a total trip of 99 minutes.

Example 2: A No-Build Alternative Airport Market CRT transit trip is via CRT on the Hudson Line from Grand Central Terminal to Beacon with a shuttle bus to SWF. The No-Build Alternative time for the train



from Grand Central Terminal to Beacon Station is 69 minutes followed by approximately a 7 minute wait for a timed shuttle bus and a 32 minute* bus ride to the SWF terminal for a total trip time of 108 minutes. In the CRT Build Alternative the transit trip time might be the same 10 minute access time at point of origin to 34th Street Station followed by an 89 minute limited stop CRT service on the PJL directly to the SWF terminal for a total trip time of 99 minutes.

* Based on published schedule. 15% was added to travel time to account for future congestion increase along the route between Beacon Station and SWF.

Increase in transit mode share for air passengers in study markets: A quantitative measure of percentage of total trips taken by transit. The change in daily mode share for each Build Alternative was compared to the No-Build Alternative for daily trips from the Manhattan CBD to SWF, as well as all trips to SWF. The Group 1A bus routes were measured based on ridership alone because those markets are not currently served by transit.

Total transit air passenger and airport employee ridership: A quantitative measure of the forecast transit air passenger and airport employee ridership in year 2035. The result is expressed in average daily airport transit riders.

Consistent with SWF market strategy - Measure 2.2

Measure(s)

Opportunities for future Airport Market development: A qualitative measure of the degree to which a transit alternative supports existing and future market development strategies for the airport. This assessment was based on the extent to which the transit infrastructure investment and service provided by an alternative supports a given air traveler market.

The future SWF Airport Market has numerous components in the region. The two largest components are the Mid-Hudson region and Manhattan. For the Mid-Hudson region market the airport bus routes that connect to the east, west, north, and south (Group 1 A Alternatives), were compared to each other for relative effectiveness in growing this market. For the Manhattan market the comparison was between the direct CRT, direct bus/BRT, and hybrid CRT alternatives for their relative ability to support growth of that market.

Example: For the Airport Market, direct commuter rail and direct bus/BRT alternatives that provide fast travel times to Manhattan, and do not require a transfer, would better support development of the Airport Market for SWF than would the hybrid alternatives that require transfers and have longer travel times.

Consistent with SWF short-term, mid-term, and long-term infrastructure and operations - Measure 2.3

Measure(s)

Opportunities for future airport infrastructure development: Measures the extent to which an alternative is compatible with and creates or support future physical development of the airport.

Example 1: A CRT Alternative that considers a station location immediately to the west of the existing SWF air passenger terminal could potentially interfere with future reconfiguration of the airside and landside of SWF.



Example 2: A CRT Alternative that considers a station location in coordination with long-range planning for airport infrastructure, could provide an opportunity for SWF expansion as opposed to an impediment, and could provide a synergistic outcome.

4.2.2.3 Goal 3 - Environmental

Goal 3 is to contribute to the attainment of regional and local environmental goals. The performance measures that were used to evaluate how well each alternative would meet the Goal 3 objectives are described below:

Improved air quality – Measure 3.1

Measure(s)

Increase in transit mode share in study markets: A quantitative measure of percentage of total trips taken by transit. Transit uses less energy and produces fewer emissions compared to travel by private vehicle; thus, higher transit mode shares would result in less emission. The change in mode share for each Build Alternative was compared to the No-Build Alternative.

Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions - Measure 3.2

Measure(s)

Increase in transit mode share in study markets: A quantitative measure of percentage of total trips taken by transit. Transit uses less energy and produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to travel by private vehicle; thus, higher transit shares would result in less greenhouse gas emissions. The change in mode share for each Build Alternative will be compared to the No-Build Alternative.

Protection of human and natural resources - Measure 3.3

Measure(s)


Major stream crossings and wetlands: Considers the number of major stream crossings and/or acres of wetlands that each alternative would cross.

Protected and endangered species and critical habitat: Considers the presence of protected and endangered species and critical habitat in the vicinity of each alternative. This measure results in a pass or fail, according to existence of these resources along the proposed alignments.

Increase to stormwater runoff: This measure considers the impacts of the project alternatives relative to the potential sources of runoff and areas likely to have an increase of impervious surface related to the improvements. Stormwater runoff occurs when precipitation from rain or snowmelt flows over the ground. Impervious surfaces such as sidewalks and streets prevent stormwater runoff from naturally soaking into the ground. The assessment results in the identification of an “order of magnitude” area of potential impacts.


Displacements to residences, businesses, and institutions: Considers the number of residential units, businesses, and institutions potentially displaced by the alternatives.



Noise sensitive receptors located along the alternative’s alignment: Considers the number of noise sensitive receptors, such as residences, hospitals, museums, and schools near each alternative.

Impacts to designated property containing contaminated or hazardous materials: Considers the number of sites containing contaminated or hazardous materials that could be impacted by the alternatives.

Impacts to significant infrastructure: Considers the types of infrastructure, such as utilities, that could be impacted by the alternatives.

Parklands, Historic districts, sites, and archaeological resources potentially affected: Considers the number of potential adverse impacts to parklands, historic, and archaeological resources associated with each of the alternatives.

Balance of project burdens and benefits in Environmental Justice communities - Measure 3.4

Measure(s)

Benefits to low income populations within ½ mile of proposed stations: Considers the percentage of low income households living within a ½-mile of the proposed stations for each alternative. Low income populations are those persons living below poverty income levels as defined by the U.S. Census; the higher the percentage of low income population within walking distance of a proposed station the greater the potential benefit. Benefits to minority populations within ½ mile of proposed stations: Considers the percentage of minority population living within a ½-mile of the proposed stations for each alternative. The U.S. Department of Transportation defines minority populations as: Black; Hispanic; Asian American; or American Indian and Alaskan Native (having origins in any of the original people of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition); the higher percentage of minority population within walking distance of a proposed station, the greater the benefit. Number of displacements and other adverse impacts in Environmental Justice communities: Considers the number of residential units, commercial businesses, and institutions within Environmental Justice communities that would potentially be displaced by the alternatives, and the potential for disproportionate other adverse impacts such as noise.

Reduced energy consumption – Measure 3.5

Measure(s)

Increase in transit mode share in study markets: A quantitative measure of percentage of total daily trips taken by transit. Private vehicle use results in higher energy consumption than transit. Therefore, energy consumption decreases with higher transit mode share. The change in mode share for each Build Alternative was compared to the No-Build Alternative.

4.2.2.4 Goal 4 - Smart Growth

Goal 4 is to support smart residential and economic growth adjacent to SWF, in Orange County, and within the surrounding region. The performance measures used to evaluate how well each alternative would meet the Goal 4 objectives are described below:



Support of adopted local and regional land use and economic development plans and policies – Measure 4.1

Measure(s)

Consistency with local land use TOD plans and policies: Considers the ability of each alternative to support existing and future land use transit-oriented development (TOD) plans and policies.

Example: One alternative may have a proposed station in a location where the station site and its immediate surroundings are currently zoned for low density residential development or protected open space, which is incompatible with transit-oriented development. By comparison, another alternative may have a proposed station in a location where the station site and surroundings are zoned for mixed use and/or higher density residential and commercial uses.

Potential to support transit-oriented development: A qualitative measure based on the assumption that new public transit infrastructure that directly serves areas with greater development potential can encourage more new dense, mixed-use, mixed income redevelopment than an alignment that would serve areas that have already been developed to their highest and best use with little chance for additional development or redevelopment. Each alternative will be assessed based on the acreage of developable land within ½ mile of the proposed transit stations.

Example: A proposed station in one alternative may be located in an area not currently zoned or planned for TOD, yet may hold considerable potential for future TOD with the introduction of a major transportation investment, whereas a station in a different alternative may have little or no potential for development or redevelopment due to attributes independent of current plans.

Coordination with interfacing projects and initiatives at the local, regional, and state level – Measure 4.2

Measure(s)

Compatibility with planned transportation, economic development, and environmental initiatives: Considers the compatibility of each alternative with planned transportation, economic development, and environmental initiatives.

Example: The CRT Eastern Alignment alternative would provide a park and ride station at a location which is a significant distance from the existing SWF air passenger terminal requiring separate connector service and a major investment in access road improvements. Moreover, the Eastern Alignment alternative is not capable of being extended in the future to reach the air passenger terminal. Additionally, the alternative requires a tunnel beneath the planned extension of runway 34 and, while feasible, it would result in the CRT station being isolated from the planned transportation, economic development, and environmental initiatives of SWF and the Town of New Windsor, which are more focused in the areas along International Boulevard and Breunig Road.

4.2.2.5 Goal 5 - Efficiency

Goal 5 is to improve efficiency, convenience and integration of transportation services. The performance measures that used to evaluate how well each alternative would meet the Goal 5 objectives are described below:



Cost – Measure 5.1

Measure(s)

Preliminary Capital Cost: Considers the cost to construct each of the alternatives. Capital costs are expressed in 2009 dollars and include construction, right-of-way, transit vehicles, and any station and park and ride facility costs. Costs also include contingency and soft costs appropriate to planning and concept level engineering.

Preliminary Operations and Maintenance Costs: Considers the annual cost to operate and maintain each of the alternatives. O&M costs are influenced by factors such as vehicle miles and vehicle hours of operations, staffing, etc. O&M costs for CRT alternatives consider typical unit costs for Metro-North and other similar transit systems. The O&M cost methodology for buses is primarily based on the revenue-hours metric, using data from transit operators throughout the Study Area.

Coordinated services and schedules across modes of both public and private operators – Measure 5.2

Measure(s)

Ease of integration with planned local bus routes: A qualitative measure that considers the degree to which an alternative can be integrated with planned local bus routes that function as feeder services, compared to alternatives that require more extensive revisions to existing and planned local bus routes.

Example: Alternatives that propose a new CRT station location that can be served by existing and planned Orange County transit bus routes with minimal route revision and relatively low increases in cost will be considered more beneficial than alternatives that propose a new station location that would be more difficult and expensive to serve with local bus routes.

4.3 Evaluation of Alternatives The alternatives were developed to a conceptual level of detail sufficient to allow their evaluation using the screening and performance measures consistent with the five project goals. The major evaluation tools included assessments of transportation performance and modeling to forecast design year ridership using separate models for the commuter and airport markets, a high level assessment of possible environmental impacts, an appraisal of the potential to support smart economic growth, and estimates of capital and operating costs. A key component in the evaluation process was the utilization of ridership forecasting models.

4.3.1 Transit Ridership

The ridership forecasts were developed utilizing the NYMTC BPM in conjunction with an Airport Passenger Model and an Airport Employee Model developed for this study (see Appendix F for model development details). These models were utilized to estimate the potential transit option ridership for the commuter and airport markets. Given the differences in the methodology approach between the models, the ridership forecasts for the commuter market and airport market were analyzed separately. (All alternatives modeled included the ARC project).

The following alternatives were modeled:

a. The WHRTAS No-Build



b. Group 1 – All Direct Bus and BRT Alternatives that advanced from Level 1 screening (see Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 for details)

c. Group 2 - Direct CRT Alternatives – Breunig Road and Aqueduct Balsam alignments6 (see Section 4.1.3 for details)

d. Group 4 - Hybrid - Salisbury Mills-Cromwell – Bus in mixed traffic and the BRT option (see Section 4.1.4 for details)

e. Group 5 - Hybrid - Beacon Alternatives – Bus in mixed traffic (see Section 4.1.5 for details)

For each of the alternatives, information on the following key indicators were summarized: commuter mode share for the AM peak period from the “Stewart District” (Traffic Analysis Zones selected in a radius of 6 to 10 miles around SWF) to Manhattan Central Business District (CBD) (all of Manhattan south of 59th Street); daily commuter ridership; and daily air passenger ridership (see Section F3 in Appendix F).

Assumptions:

Commuter Market:

1. The BPM forecasts transit ridership results for only the AM peak period (6AM -10 AM). In order to obtain daily numbers, the AM ridership is multiplied by a factor of 2.86, provided by Metro-North. The factor represents the difference between peak period and all day and assumes two-way commuter ridership on the transit route.

Air Passenger Market:

1. The modeling process assumed that in 2035 SWF would handle 7 million7 passengers (3.5 million annual arrivals and the same number of annual departures). This assumption was derived by the Port Authority for planning purposes as an ‘aspirational’ growth level.

2. Air passenger service at SWF assumed domestic air service similar to the average service at Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI), Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (MHT), T.F. Green International Airport (PVD), and international air service to Transatlantic, South/Central American and Canadian destinations to match the forecast split between domestic and international enplanements.

3. The Air Passenger Model developed for this project produced annual air passenger trips. A factor of 1/365 was used to convert from annual to average daily trips.

6 The Eastern Alignment and the Aqueduct Reed Alignment were not modeled. The ridership for these alignments were estimated based on results observed for the Aqueduct Balsam and Breunig alignments respectively. 7 Port Authority supplied originating enplanement forecasts for 2035 for the six airports in the BPM region. Port Authority staff also provided a 2035 forecast for SWF of 7 million annual passengers, equally split between arriving and departing travelers. Port Authority and the WHRTAS team also posited a future flight schedule of domestic and international destinations and airfare assumptions potentially capable of attracting residents and visitors otherwise likely to use the region's other airports. These assumptions and time frame go beyond projections of SWF activity cited elsewhere by Port Authority. However, they are consistent with WHRTAS goals and objectives and Port Authority's SWF redevelopment strategy, which both recognize the relationship between enhanced transit access for SWF and its potential to emerge as a significant alternative for air travelers in the wider metropolitan region. This "aspirational" forecast of SWF volumes provides a sufficient base of potential users for the transit alternatives to support a meaningful analysis and comparison of the performance of the airport transit "build" alternatives. This approach supports long-term planning for sustainable SWF development by measuring the potential value of a SWF transit link to the PJL even beyond the WHRTAS AA time horizon, especially given expressed concern over the potential loss of rights-of-way to ongoing development in the area.



4.3.1.1 Commuter Ridership8

Figure 4-9 summarizes the highway, CRT, and bus travel mode shares for the AM peak period for trips between the Stewart District and the Manhattan CBD for the WHRTAS No-Build and Build alternatives. Travel mode share is the percentage each mode represents of the total estimated trips for each alternative. Based on the proposed improvement to either commuter rail or bus services, all alternatives succeed in increasing the mode share for their focused improvement. For example, the Direct Rail Alternative has the highest mode share of commuter rail. Similarly bus and bus rapid transit is expected to experience the greatest bus mode share increase, approximately 6 percent higher than the WHRTAS No-Build Alternative.

Figure 4-9 Commuter Mode Share (AM Peak Period) – Stewart District to Manhattan CBD

Figure 4-10 summarizes the daily commuter ridership by alternative, which represents the total trips expected for each alternative. The year 2035 No-Build daily commuter ridership is estimated at 18,800. Almost all alternatives provide for increased capacity to serve trips as shown by an increase in the total daily commuter ridership, with the exception of the Salisbury Mills and Beacon Shuttle Hybrid alternatives. Under both the bus and BRT alternatives, the combined daily transit (bus and rail) ridership is estimated to be 19,300 trips. The BRT alternative would generate 4,100 commuter trips compared to 3,400 trips for the Bus Alternative. This indicates that in the Orange to Manhattan CBD transit market, both the Bus and BRT alternatives would divert riders from the CRT service.

8 Assumes implementation of ARC

2035 No Build

Bus BRTDirect Rail

SMC Hybrid

Beacon Hybrid

HWY 17% 15% 15% 13% 17% 16%

CR 63% 60% 58% 69% 63% 61%

Bus 21% 24% 27% 18% 20% 23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Mode Share

Commuter Mode Share (AM Peak) ‐ SWF District to Manhattan CBD



Note: In the No-Build – Bus service is assumed from the 17K park and ride to the Port Authority Bus Terminal. Rail service is assumed on the MBCL/PJL.

Figure 4-10 Daily Commuter Ridership by Alternative

4.3.1.2 Airport Ridership

Figure 4-11 present the mode share to SWF by airport users by alternative from the New York County District. Based on the proposed improvement to either commuter rail or bus services, all alternatives succeed in increasing the mode share for their focused improvement. However, both the CRT and bus alternatives capture the highest mode share percentages compared to the WHRTAS No-Build Alternative.

Figure 4-11 2035 Forecast Airport Users - Transit Mode Share – New York District to SWF by Alternative

2035 No Build

CRT Base Build

busSMC Hybrid

BRTBeacon Hybrid

Series1 12.3% 33.4% 34.2% 23.7% 24.1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Mode Share

Transit Mode Share to SWF by Altenative

2035 No Build

Bus BRTDirect Rail

SMC Hybrid

Beacon Hybrid

Bus* 2,400 3,400 4,100 2,500 2,500 2,500

Rail** 16,400 15,900 15,200 20,400 16,400 16,000

Total 18,800 19,300 19,300 22,900 18,900 18,500

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Ridership

Daily Commuter Ridership by Alternative

NY County Transit Mode Share to SWF by Alternative



Figure 4-12 show the number of total daily trips of airport users by rail and bus (to and from SWF) by alternative. Figure 4-13 show the number of total daily trips of airport users by rail only (to and from SWF) by alternative and by rail only (For additional details see section 4.4.2.2).

Figure 4-12 Daily Ridership to/from SWF (Rail and Bus) by Alternative

Figure 4-13 Daily Ridership to/from SWF (Rail only) by Alternative

2035 No Build

CRT Base Build

busSMC Hybrid

BRTBeacon Hybrid

Series1 351 1445 1360 975 1045

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Ridership

Daily Airport Rideship to/from SWF (Rail and Bus) by Altenative

2035 No Build

CRT Base Build

busSMC Hybrid BRT

Beacon Hybrid

Series1 320 1114 710 780 670

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Ridership

Daily Airport Rideship to/from SWF (Rail only) by Altenative

* Estimated

Daily Airport Ridership to/from SWF (Rail and Bus) by Alternative

Daily Airport Ridership to/from SWF (Rail only) by Alternative



4.3.2 Comparison of Alternatives

The results of analysis by alternatives against each criteria measure are presented in Table 4-5 for the Airport Market and Table 4-6 for the Commuter Market followed by results and findings by Alternative group. The evaluations as presented in these tables are discussed below. Detailed discussion of the environmental factors is presented in appendix E9.

4.3.2.1 Direct Bus and Bus Rapid Transit (Group 1)

The direct bus routes serve the Airport Market from the Mid-Hudson region, as well as the region to the south, while the Commuter Market is served only by the regional bus routes to the south.

4.3.2.1.1 Goal 1: Improve commuter transit access and mobility between central Orange and New York City (Commuter Market).

Design year 2035 peak period travel time to Midtown Manhattan from the Route 17K park and ride is approximately 100-115 minutes in mixed traffic. The travel time for the version with dedicated BRT bus lanes on I-87 is approximately 85-100 minutes, which could reduce travel time by up to 30 minutes in each direction.

The bus alternatives serving Hackensack, NJ and Midtown Manhattan generate the highest number of commuter riders from central Orange County of the bus alternatives. The routes serving the George Washington Bridge Bus Station, Hoboken, NJ and Paterson, NJ have less ridership. The BRT version of the Midtown Manhattan route, which includes a busway on the I-87, attracts the most bus ridership.

Transit mode share for the Stewart District to New York City market increases by almost 3 percent compared to the No-Build for the bus traveling to New York City in mixed traffic (B-XM) and the BRT (B-C1). The BRT Alternative accounts for up to a total of 1,200 daily transit commuter riders in the year 2035.

All bus alternatives are similar in terms of frequency of service, operational flexibility and expandability, station accessibility, and integration with and use of existing infrastructure. The BRT alternative is more complex to integrate with existing infrastructure.

Schedule reliability during peak periods is problematic for all of the bus options (as it is for the No-Build alternative) and is likely to continue to deteriorate over time as roadway traffic congestion grows. The BRT Alternative has higher reliability than the bus routes operating in mixed traffic, but the BRT is limited to the portion of the corridor north of Suffern, NY.

9 Based upon the local setting described in Chapter 1 and Appendix A, certain environmental measures were considered in the

development of the Level 2 Alternatives and their evaluation in Appendix E. Consideration of these environmental measures during the development of the alternatives resulted in most alignments avoiding or reducing potentially negative impacts. As Appendix E indicates, the alternatives evaluated in the Level 2 screening triggered little or no impacts on impacts on environmental factors such as EJ Communities, Parks and Recreation facilities, Contaminated Resources and Public Service and Utilities. However, most of the alternatives may trigger relatively low impact on; Protected and Endangered species, Archeological and Architectural resources, Noise, and Wetlands and Surface Waters which could be mitigated. All of the CRT alignment options and the BRT segment of the Hybrid Salisbury Mills alternative would require some takings of mostly farmland and the use of existing publicly owned property.



Table 4-5 Level 2 Screening Results – Airport Market

Screening Measures

Units/ Rating

System1

Type2

Mode3

Comments Direct Bus Direct Bus / BRT Direct Commuter Rail

Hybrid Salisbury Mills

Hybrid Beacon

B-XN B-XE B-XW B-XS B-

XWP B-XC B-XM B-XH B-XG B-XP B-

XHA B-C1 RC-

Eastern RC-

Breunig

RC-Aqueduct Balsam

RC-Aqueduct Reed St.

RX-C1 RB-C1 RX-B1 RB-B1


1.1 Change in transit travel time between Central Orange County and New York City

Time saved in minutes M Measures not applicable to airport market

1.2 Frequency of service Headways M Measures not applicable to airport market

1.3 Reliability of mode Rating -2 to +2 Q/M Measures not applicable to airport market

1.4 Ability to adjust service levels to meet market demand Rating -2 to +2 Q Measures not applicable to airport market

1.5


Average population

M Measures not applicable to airport market


Average employment M Measures not applicable to airport market

1.6 Integration with and use of existing infrastructure Rating -2 to +2 Q Measures not applicable to airport market

1.7

Increase in transit mode share for commuters in markets served

Percentage M Measures not applicable to airport market

Daily transit commuter ridership in the Stewart District Number M Measures not applicable to airport market

Daily transit commuter ridership at proposed Park and Ride Number M Measures not applicable to airport market


2.1



M New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New 5-10 5-10 For Beacon shuttle bus the time savings is primarily reduced waiting time due to higher bus frequency

Increase in transit mode share for air passengers in study markets Percentage M <0.5% <0.5% 0.0% <0.5% 0.0% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% 0.0% Small transit mode share shift for airport market based on

operating plan tested Daily transit air passenger and airport employee ridership Number M 40 40 <5 20 <10 10 560 15 110 20 40 700 1,000 1,100 1,000 1,100 700 800 680 NA Compass point bus routes have low ridership. The NYC bus

and CRT show somewhat higher ridership.

2.2 Opportunities for future airport market development Rating -2 to +2 Q +1 +1 0 +1 0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +2 0 0 0 0 Bus are somewhat positive, while CRT is more positive

2.3 Opportunities for future airport infrastructure development Rating -2 to +2 Q +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 Compatible SWF/transit Concepts will maximize benefits


3.1 Improved air quality - Increase in transit mode share in study markets

Percentage Q(M) <0.5% <0.5% 0.0% <0.5% 0.0% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% 0.0% Small transit mode share shift for airport market based on operating plan tested

3.2 Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions - Increase in transit mode share in study markets Percentage Q(M) <0.5% <0.5% 0.0% <0.5% 0.0% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% 0.0% Small transit mode share shift for airport market based on

operating plan tested

3.3


Major stream crossings and wetlands Number Q(M) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5/4/4 5/4/3 5/4/2 5/4/3 5/4/3 2/4/3 0 2 CRT impacts are generally low and can be mitigated


Rating -2 to +2 Q +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 -1 -1/0/+1 -1/0/+1 -1/0/+1 -1/0/0 -1/0/+1

0/0/+1 +2 +1 CRT impacts are generally low and can be mitigated

Increase in stormwater runoff Area in acres Q(M) 5 5 5 5 5 5 NA NA NA 5 5 6.8/18/4.7

15.6/2.2/9.9

15.6/2.2/6.1

15.6/2.2/5.8

15.6/2.2/9.2

21/3/8.1

17.3/3/8.1

TBD 1.5 Bus impacts are P&R lots. CRT impacts are track bed



Number of displacements Q(M) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 7 4 0 0 0

Eastern Alignment displaces one residence trailer home. BRT version along Rt207 would have some business displacements. CRT displacements are generally unoccupied buildings.

Noise sensitive receptors located along the alternative's alignment

Number of receptors Q(M) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 50/6/21 50/6/14 50/6/0 50/6/0 25/2/6 30/2/6 0 0

Bus on existing roads assumed to have no impact. CRT on new ROW are counted as defined.



Table 4-5 Level 2 Screening Results - Airport Market (continued)

Screening Measures

Units/ Rating

System1

Type2

Mode3

Comments Direct Bus Direct Bus / BRT Direct Commuter Rail Hybrid Salisbury

Mills Hybrid Beacon

B-XN B-XE B-XW B-XS B-XWP

B-XC B-XM B-XH B-XG B-XP B-XHA

B-C1 RC-Eastern

RC-Breunig

RC-Aqueduct Balsam



3.3


Number of listed

hazardous materials sites

M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Low/ 1High

1 Low/ 2 High

1 Low/0 High

1 Low/0 High

1 Low/0 High

1 Low/0 High

1 low/0 High

0 1 Low CRT alignments are generally open farmland. Portions on/near airport may require further analysis.

Impacts to significant infrastructure Significant

infrastructure Q(M) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Powerline/Gas Line

Powerline/0/Runway

Powerline/0/0

Powerline/0/Aqueduc

t

Powerline/0/Aqueduc

t

Powerline/0/0 0/0/0 0 0

CRT alignment can pass beneath powerlines. Avoidance and protection of Aqueduct is defined at concept level


Number of sites Q(M) 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 14 12

0/0/0 6/1/1 0/0/2

0/0/0 4/1/0 0/0/0

0/0/0 4/1/3 0/0/0

0/0/0 4/1/4 0/0/0

0/0/0 4/1/0 0/0/0

0/0/0 0/1/0 0/0/0

0 0 No fatal flaws at this level of analysis

3.4

Benefits to low income populations within ½ mile of proposed stations

Percentage M 14% 10% 10% 5% 14% 14% NA NA NA NA NA 0% 2% 0% 2% 2% 10% 2% 10% 2% Percentages are for upstate station locations. The difference in absolute numbers is relatively small.

Benefits to minority populations within ½ mile of proposed stations

Percentage M 20% 23% 31% 23% 75% 75% NA NA NA NA NA 41% 22% 41% 42% 42% 20% 22% 20% 22% Percentages are for upstate station locations. The difference in absolute numbers is relatively small.

Number of displacements and other adverse impacts in EJ communities

Number M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 There are no impacts for any alternative, except RB-B1.

3.5 Increase in transit mode share in study markets Percentage Q(M) <0.5% <0.5% 0.0% <0.5% 0.0% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% 0.0% Small transit mode share shift for airport market based on operating plan tested

Goal 4: Support smart residential and economic growth in SWF area, Orange County, and the Region.

4.1 Consistency with local land use TOD plans and policies Rating -2 to +2 Q +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +2 -1 +1 +1 +1

Bus is somewhat positive, while CRT is more positive. Hybrid on local roads is less consistent with local plans. Eastern CRT less positive.

Potential to support transit-oriented development Rating -2 to +2 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 +2 +2 -1 0 0 0 Bus is neutral while CRT is strongly positive, except for Eastern CRT which is neutral.

4.2 Compatibility with planned transportation, economic development and environmental initiatives

Rating -2 to +2 Q +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 +1 +1 Bus and CRT similar, except for Eastern CRT and Hybrid SMC bus which are neutral or negative.


5.1 Preliminary Capital Cost ($2009) 4 Dollars M $28 M $39 M $28 M $94 M $87 M $91 M $78 M $78 M $78 M $75 M $75 M $2000 M $840 M $712 M $610 M $743 M $3 M $118 M $6 M $20 M SMC Hybrid assumes $100m CRT rolling stock

Preliminary Operations and Maintenance Costs ($2009 annual) Dollars M $3 M $4 M $4 M $3 M $6 M $7 M $7 M $7 M $7 M $5 M $5 M $6 M $26 M $26 M $26 M $26 M $0.5-1 M $0.5-1 M $2 M $2 M SMC Hybrid assumes $25.5m CRT O&M

5.2 Ease of integration with planned local bus routes Rating -2 to +2 M +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 +1 +1 +1 0 +1 +1 +1 Bus and CRT similar, except for Eastern CRT and Hybrid SMC bus which are neutral or negative.

Recommendation

1 Rating -2 to +2 -2 = Strongly negative; -1 = Somewhat negative; 0 = Neutral; +1 = Somewhat positive +2 = Strongly positive. Number of listed hazardous material sites Low/High = Sites with high and low contamination concern within 1 mile of anticipated construction work.

2 Q = Qualitative rating based on judgment (for example, consistency with existing land use plans and policies); Q(M)= Qualitative rating informed by surrogate or approximate measure (for example, rating wetland impacts based on an inexact right-of-way footprint); M = Direct Measurement (for example, capital cost).

3Summary Ratings are for Long-term. Refer to detailed tabs for short and medium term ratings 4 BRT version of bus routes operating on I-87 between Suffern and SWF would add approximately $2-3 billion to the capital cost, depending on configuration. 5 Where Goal 3 results are presented as 1/1/1, the first number relates to East Wye Alignment, the second number relates to Common Trunk Alignment and the third number relates to Northern Terminus.



Table 4-6 Level 2 Screening Results – Commuter Market

Screening Measures

Units/ Rating

System1 Type2

Mode3

Comments Direct Bus Direct Bus / BRT Direct Commuter Rail

Hybrid Salisbury Mills

Hybrid Beacon

B-XN B-XE B-XW B-XS B-

XWP B-XC B-XM B-XH B-XG B-XP B-

XHA B-C1 RC-

Eastern

RC-Breunig

RC-Aqueduct Balsam




1.1 Change in transit travel time between Central Orange County and New York City

Time saved in minutes M 10 30 30 30 30 30 NA 5-10 5-10 5-10 0 0 5-10 5-10

For bus the savings are from ramp at RT207; for BRT the savings are Thruway bus lanes; for CRT savings are station access time; for SMC Hybrid transfers negate savings; for Beacon Hybrid the savings are reduced wait time for shuttle bus.

1.2 Frequency of service Headways M 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 15 15 Beacon Hybrids higher frequency match Hudson Line

1.3 Reliability of mode Rating -2 to +2 Q/M 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 +2 +2 +2 0 +1 -1 +1 Bus in mixed traffic is least reliable. CRT is most.

1.4 Ability to adjust service levels to meet market demand Rating -2 to +2 Q +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 Bus and BRT service can be adjusted quickly

1.5


Average population M 115 K 115 K 115 K 115 K 115 K 115 K 116 K 115 K 116 K 116 K 124 K 116 K 124 K 116 K Little difference between alternatives


Average employment M 47 K 47 K 47 K 47 K 47 K 47 K 47 K 47 K 48 K 48 K 50 K 47 K 50 K 47 K Little difference between alternatives

1.6 Integration with and use of existing infrastructure Rating -2 to +2 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 CRT leverages PJL and ARC investments

1.7

Increase in transit mode share for commuters in markets served Percentage M 2.6% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 1.5% 2.8% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% <0.1% <0.2% 0.9% 0.0% CRT provides largest increase in transit mode share

Daily transit commuter ridership in the Stewart District Number M 1,100 200 300 600 700 1,200 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 20 100 400 0

CRT has highest ridership, followed by Mid-town Manhattan express bus and BRT.

Daily transit commuter ridership at proposed Park and Ride

Number M 1,100 200 300 600 700 1,200 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 20 100 400 0 CRT has highest ridership, followed by Mid-town Manhattan express bus and BRT.


2.1



M

Measures not applicable to commuter market

Increase in transit mode share for air passengers in study markets Percentage M


Daily transit air passenger and airport employee ridership

Number M


2.2 Opportunities for future airport market development Rating -2 to +2 Q


2.3 Opportunities for future airport infrastructure development

Rating -2 to +2 Q



3.1 Improved air quality - Increase in transit mode share in study markets Percentage Q(M) 2.6% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 1.5% 2.8% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% <0.1% <0.2% 0.9% 0.0% CRT provides largest increase in transit mode share

3.2 Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions - Increase in transit mode share in study markets Percentage Q(M) 2.6% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 1.5% 2.8% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% <0.1% <0.2% 0.9% 0.0% CRT provides largest increase in transit mode share

3.3


Major stream crossings and wetlands Number Q(M) 0 0 0 0 0 3 5/4/4 5/4/3 5/4/2 5/4/3 5/4/3 2/4/3 0 2 CRT impacts are generally low and can be mitigated


Rating -2 to +2 Q +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 -1 -1/0/+1

-1/0/+1 -1/0/+1 -1/0/0 -1/0/+1 0/0/+1 +2 +1 CRT impacts are generally low and can be mitigated

Increase in stormwater runoff Area in acres Q(M) NA NA NA 5 5 6.8/184.7

15.6/2.2/9.9

15.6/2.2/6.1

15.6/2.2/5.8

15.6/2.2/9.2

21/3/8.1

17.3/3/8.1

TBD 1.5 Bus impacts are P&R lots. CRT impacts are track bed




Table 4-6 Level 2 Screening Results – Commuter Market (continued)

Screening Measures

Units/ Rating System1 Type2

Mode3

Comments Direct Bus Direct Bus / BRT Direct Commuter Rail Hybrid Salisbury

Mills Hybrid Beacon

B-XN B-XE B-XW B-XS B-XWP

B-XC B-XM B-XH B-XG B-XP B-XHA

B-C1 RC-Eastern

RC-Breunig

RC-Aqueduct Balsam



3.3


Number of displacements

Q(M) ? 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 7 4 0 0 0

Eastern Alignment displaces one residence trailer home. BRT version along Rt207 would have some business displacements. CRT displacements are generally unoccupied buildings.

Noise sensitive receptors located along the alternative's alignment

Number of receptors Q(M) 0 0 0 0 0 40 50/6/21 50/6/14 50/6/0 50/6/0 25/2/6 30/2/6 0 0 Bus on existing roads assumed to have no impact.

CRT on new ROW are counted as defined.


Number of listed hazardous

materials sites M 0 0 0 0 0 8 Low/11

High 1 Low/ 2 High

1 Low/0 High

1 Low/0 High

1 Low/0 High

1 Low/0 High

1 Low/0 High

0 1 Low CRT alignments are generally open farmland. Portions on/near airport may require further analysis.

Impacts to significant infrastructure Significant infrastructure

Q(M) 0 0 0 0 0 Powerline/Gas Line

Powerline/0/Runway

Powerline/0/0

Powerline/0/Aqueduc

t

Powerline/0/Aqueduc

t

Powerline/0/0

0/0/0 0 0 CRT alignment can pass beneath powerlines. Avoidance and protection of Aqueduct is defined at concept level


Number of sites Q(M) 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 14 12

0/0/0 6/1/1 0/0/2

0/0/0 4/1/0 0/0/0

0/0/0 4/1/3 0/0/0

0/0/0 4/1/4 0/0/0

0/0/0 4/1/0 0/0/0

0/0/0 0/1/0 0/0/0

0 0 No fatal flaws at this level of analysis

3.4

Benefits to low income populations within ½ mile of proposed stations Percentage M NA NA NA NA NA 0% 2% 0% 2% 2% 10% 2% 10% 2%

Percentages are for upstate station locations. The difference in absolute numbers is relatively small.

Benefits to minority populations within ½ mile of proposed stations

Percentage M NA NA NA NA NA 41% 22% 41% 42% 42% 20% 22% 20% 22% Percentages are for upstate station locations. The difference in absolute numbers is relatively small.

Number of displacements and other adverse impacts in EJ communities Number M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 There are no impacts for any alternative, except

RB-B1.

3.5 Increase in transit mode share in study markets Percentage Q(M) 2.6% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 1.5% 2.8% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% <0.1% <0.2% 0.9% 0.0% Small transit mode share shift for airport market based on operating plan tested

Goal 4: Support smart residential and economic growth in SWF area, Orange County, and the Region.

4.1

Consistency with local land use TOD plans and policies Rating -2 to +2 Q +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +2 -1 +1 +1 +1

Bus is somewhat positive, while CRT is more positive. Hybrid on local roads is less consistent with local plans. Eastern CRT less positive.

Potential to support transit-oriented development Rating -2 to +2 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 +2 +2 -1 0 0 0 Bus is neutral while CRT is strongly positive, except for Eastern CRT which is neutral.

4.2 Compatibility with planned transportation, economic development and environmental initiatives Rating -2 to +2 Q +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 +1 +1

Bus and CRT similar, except for Eastern CRT and Hybrid SMC bus which are neutral or negative.


5.1 Preliminary Capital Cost ($2009) 4 Dollars M $91 M $88 M $88 M $86 M $86 M $2000 M $791 M $762 M $660 M $793 M $17 M $146

M $18 M $33 M SMC Hybrid assumes $100m CRT rolling stock

Preliminary Operations and Maintenance Costs ($2009 annual) Dollars M $5 M $4 M $4 M $3 M $3 M $4 M $26 M $26 M $26 M $26 M $0.5-1 M $0.5-1

M $0.8 M $0.8 M SMC Hybrid assumes $25.5m CRT O&M

5.2 Ease of integration with planned local bus routes Rating -2 to +2 M +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 +1 +1 +1 0 +1 +1 +1 Bus and CRT similar, except for Eastern CRT and Hybrid SMC bus which are neutral or negative.

Recommendation 1 Rating -2 to +2 -2 = Strongly negative; -1 = Somewhat negative; 0 = Neutral; +1 = Somewhat positive +2 = Strongly positive. Number of listed hazardous material sites Low/High = Sites with high and low contamination concern within 1 mile of anticipated construction work.

2 Q = Qualitative rating based on judgment (for example, consistency with existing land use plans and policies); Q(M)= Qualitative rating informed by surrogate or approximate measure (for example, rating wetland impacts based on an inexact right-of-way footprint); M = Direct Measurement (for example, capital cost).

3Summary Ratings are for Long-term. Refer to detailed tabs for short and medium term ratings 4 BRT version of bus routes operating on I-87 between Suffern and SWF would add approximately $2-3 billion to the capital cost, depending on configuration. 5 Where Goal 3 results are presented as 1/1/1, the first number relates to East Wye Alignment, the second number relates to Common Trunk Alignment and the third number relates to Northern Terminus.



4.3.2.1.2 Goal 2: Provide transit options for access to/from the SWF 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 (Airport Market).

Ridership on the bus routes serving the Mid-Hudson region to SWF Airport Market is forecast to be very low because the buses provide little, if any, cost or travel time savings for air passengers or airport employees.

All alternatives would provide opportunities for future airport infrastructure development.

In the design year 2035, the Midtown Manhattan route attracts approximately 700 daily air passenger and airport employee riders under the BRT service (B-C1) and up to 560 under mixed traffic service (B-XM), followed by the George Washington Bridge route (B-XG) with approximately 110 daily riders, and the Hackensack, NJ route (B-XHA) with approximately 40 daily riders. The remaining routes south of SWF attract 20 or fewer daily Airport Market riders.

4.3.2.1.3 Goal 3: Contribute to the attainment of regional and local environmental goals (airport and commuter markets).

Bus options have very modest positive impacts on reduced energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions compared to WHRTAS No-Build conditions as a result of the very modest diversion of auto trips.

The mixed traffic Bus alternatives have little or no impacts on the natural or man-made environments.

The BRT Alternative, which requires widening I-87, could have potentially impact wetlands or protected or endangered species and critical habitat impacts and might change stormwater runoff conditions due to the increase in impervious surface area.

The BRT Alternative requires over 30 miles of roadway widening since dedicated busway lanes do not currently exist between Suffern and Route 207. The large scale construction required will have relatively high energy consumption and environmental impact and provides a long-term operation that is not highly sustainable and energy efficient.

The BRT alternative (B-C1) could require the acquisition of some property along I-87 near route 207and could require the mitigation to prehistoric sites.

4.3.2.1.4 Goal 4: Support smart residential and economic growth in the SWF Airport area, Orange County, and the region (airport and commuter markets).

All bus and BRT alternatives are compatible with other local and regional transportation, economic development, and environmental planning initiatives, including those at SWF Airport, within the Town of New Windsor, and the Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Study.

All bus and BRT alternatives could contribute to economic growth but would have little influence on smart growth and TOD.

4.3.2.1.5 Goal 5: Improve efficiency, convenience, and integration of transportation services (airport and commuter markets).

For the Airport Market, preliminary capital cost(s) for the direct bus alternatives range from $28 to $94 million and the preliminary annual O&M costs range from $3 to $4 million. Preliminary capital costs for the direct Bus/BRT Alternative using bus lanes on I-87 between Suffern and New Windsor range from $2 billion (center median configuration) to $3.5 billion (shoulder configuration). The Paterson, NJ and



Hackensack, NJ mixed traffic alternatives would have the least capital and O&M costs, while the routes using I-87 bus lanes would have the highest capital and O&M costs (all costs in 2009 dollars).

For the Commuter Market, preliminary capital cost(s) for direct bus alternatives range from $86 to $91 million. Preliminary annual O&M costs range from $3 million for the Paterson, NJ and Hackensack, NJ alternatives to $9 million for I-87 mixed traffic alternative. As with the Airport Market buses, the BRT version with bus lanes on I-87 would cost $2 billion to $3.5 billion (all costs in 2009 dollars).

The differences in capital cost(s) between the airport and commuter market bus routes relate to the Route 17K park and ride for the commuter routes and bus fleet size.

The capital cost(s) of each bus route to the south of SWF includes 100% of construction cost for bus-only ramps at Route 207. If multiple bus routes are implemented to the south the cost of the ramps would be shared.

All the bus and BRT alternatives have the ability to integrate with planned local bus routes that can function as feeder services.

4.3.2.2 Direct Commuter Rail (Group 2)

All of the rail alternatives consist of a branch that originates near Salisbury Mills-Cornwall (SMC) Station on the PJL and travels north terminating in the vicinity of the SWF Airport. For CRT alternatives, MNR’s PJL service would continue south of Suffern via NJT’s MBCL. Phase 1 results are based on an analysis that assumed implementation of ARC. This analysis will be revisited in Phase 2, applying updated assumptions about the future regional network.

Goal 1: Improve commuter transit access and mobility between central Orange and New York City (Commuter Market).

All direct CRT alternatives provide similar frequency of service, reliability, operational flexibility and expandability, and integration with and use of existing infrastructure. The direct CRT alternatives would provide the fastest overall commuter transit travel time (in-vehicle) ranging from 88-99 minutes between central Orange County and Midtown Manhattan in the design year 2035.

The direct CRT alternatives provide the most reliable transit service of all of the alternatives since they are not impacted by roadway congestion.

All the direct rail alternatives increase transit mode share for commuters to New York City by 6 percent in the Stewart District and would have approximately 3,700 commuter riders per day at the new SWF Airport Station in the year 2035. When combined with the air passengers market, the net increase on PJL over the No Build would be 4,700 daily riders including airport passengers using the Beacon connection.

Goal 2: Provide transit options for access to/from the SWF 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 (Airport Market).

All direct CRT alternatives provide similar frequency of service, reliability, operational flexibility and expandability, and integration with and use of existing infrastructure. Assuming implementation of ARC, the direct CRT alternatives would provide the fastest overall Airport Market transit travel time ranging from 88-99 minutes between central Orange County and Midtown Manhattan in the design year 2035.

The direct CRT alternatives provide the most reliable transit service of all of the alternatives since they are not impacted by roadway congestion.



All direct CRT alternatives increase transit mode share for air passengers and would have approximately 1,000 to 1,100 air passenger riders per day at the new SWF Station in the year 2035.

The direct CRT extensions provide the best opportunities for future Airport Market and airport infrastructure development compared to other alternatives.

Goal 3: Contribute to the attainment of regional and local environmental goals (airport and commuter markets).

The direct CRT alternatives would result in the greatest reductions in energy consumption and

greenhouse gas emissions of all of the alternatives.

Among the rail extensions studied, the Aqueduct and Breunig alignment options would have fewer impacts on the natural environment than would the Eastern Alignment. The Eastern Alignment will have the highest impact on the natural environment (crosses 13 streams and wetlands) and will increase the impervious surface area by 27 acres.

The Aqueduct Balsam Alignment would not result in displacement of residences, businesses and institutions. The Aqueduct Reed and Breunig alignments could impact various occupied and vacant buildings. The Eastern Alignment would not result in any displacements.

Construction of the East Wye, the West Wye, and the Common Trunk could result in some property takings south of Route 207. The East Wye would require one residential displacement.

The direct CRT alternatives would utilize existing rail infrastructure between Orange County and Manhattan with new construction limited to the approximately 4 to 5 mile rail extension from existing SMC station to the airport, which limits environmental impacts and energy consumption during construction and provides a sustainable energy efficient long-term operation.

Goal 4: Support smart residential and economic growth in the SWF Airport area, Orange County, and the region (airport and commuter markets).

All direct CRT alternatives serving both the airport and commuter markets have the potential to shape and support smart residential and economic growth in the SWF Airport area, Orange County and the region.

The Breunig, Aqueduct Balsam, and Aqueduct Reed Street alignment options perform best of the four direct CRT alternatives as they have the highest ability to support existing and future transit-oriented development (TOD) plans and policies. The Eastern Alignment performs the poorest because the area around the station would be constrained by terrain, a closed landfill, an active military base, and I-87.

The Breunig, Aqueduct Balsam, and Aqueduct Reed Street alignment options have potentially higher compatibility with existing and planned transportation, economic development, and environmental initiatives. The Eastern Alignment offers only a limited compatibility for development.

Goal 5: Improve efficiency, convenience, and integration of transportation services (airport and commuter markets).

For the Airport Market, the preliminary capital cost for direct CRT alternatives using a bi-directional Wye connection with the PJL would range from a low of $610 million for Aqueduct Balsam at-grade to approximately $840 million for Eastern Alignment.



For the Commuter Market, the preliminary capital cost for direct CRT alternatives using a bi-directional Wye connection with the PJL would range from a low of $660 million for the Aqueduct Balsam Alignment at-grade to approximately $793 million for the Aqueduct Reed Alignment.

Capital costs using the more operationally restrictive relay track connection with the PJL are somewhat lower across all direct CRT alternatives (all costs in 2009 dollars).

All direct CRT alternatives would have preliminary O&M costs of approximately $26 million per year (all costs in 2009 dollars).

All direct CRT alternatives have the ability to integrate with planned local bus routes, which could function as feeder services.

4.3.2.3 Salisbury Mills Hybrid (Group 4)

The Salisbury Mills Hybrid Alternative connecting Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Station to the SWF Airport includes two alternatives. The first is a bus service (RX-C1) operating in mixed-flow traffic lanes and the second is BRT service (RB-B1) running in dedicated right of way on same alignment as the CRT East Wye option. The bus routes were assumed to extend from the SMC Metro-North station to SWF Airport in mixed traffic along either Bethlehem or Station Road. The Commuter Market Bus Hybrid Alternative included an expanded park and ride at Route 17K while the BRT alternative included a commuter park and ride garage in the vicinity of the airport.


The bus option provides no reduction in transit travel time between central Orange County and New York City.

The BRT option is projected to have faster and more reliable service compared to the bus alternative operating in mixed traffic.

The required mode transfer in this alternative negatively impacts ridership and shows little or no increase in transit mode share compared to the No-Build.


Both hybrid options increase the transit mode share for air passengers and would have approximately 700-800 air passenger riders per day in year 2035.


Both options increase the transit mode for the Airport Market and would reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The bus in mixed traffic option adds 2-4 buses per hour to existing low volume semi-rural roads in the area and will have little if any impacts on the natural or manmade environments, other than an increase in impervious area at the expanded Route 17K park and ride.

BRT would require one residential displacement (one manufactured home) and partial taking of farmlands south of Route 207.

The BRT option involves the construction of a new road with nine major stream and wetlands crossings, and will result in an increase of impervious surface area of about 28 acres.



Goal 4: Support smart residential and economic growth in the SWF Airport area, Orange County, and the region (airport and commuter markets).

The BRT option could contribute to economic growth and have some influence on smart growth and TOD.


Preliminary capital costs for the bus option are estimated to be $3 million for the Airport Market and $17 million for the Commuter Market. The preliminary capital costs for the BRT option are estimated to be $118 million for the Airport Market and $146 million for the Commuter Market. (All costs in 2009 dollars.) The differences in capital cost between the airport and commuter markets for the bus option relate to the Route 17K park and ride for the Commuter Market and bus fleet size. For the BRT option the cost difference is for a park and ride garage for the Commuter Market.

Preliminary annual O&M costs range from $0.5 to $1 million per year, which is for the connector bus portion between SMC and SWF Airport and assumes connecting with the No-Build commuter rail service on the PJL. (All costs in 2009 dollars.)

Both options integrate well with planned local bus routes that can function as feeder services.

4.3.2.4 Beacon Hybrid (Group 5)

The hybrid alternative connecting Beacon to the SWF Airport includes a bus (RX-B1) option and an enhanced bus (RB-B1) option for both airport and commuter markets. The bus routes were assumed to extend from the Beacon Metro-North station on the Hudson Line to the SWF Airport in mixed traffic along existing roads. The enhanced bus option explored limited improvements such as queue jump lanes to improve bus service between Beacon Station and I-84. The option serving the Commuter Market included an expanded Route 17K park and ride.


The Beacon Hybrid Alternative assumes an increase in the frequency of connecting bus service between Beacon Station and the Route 17K park and ride compared to the No-Build Alternative.

Travel time on the Beacon Hybrid Alternative can range up to 109 minutes, which is among the longest of all Build alternatives serving Manhattan.

The Beacon Hybrid Alternative uses the Hudson Line, which provides direct access to destinations on the east side of Manhattan using Grand Central Terminal.

The queue jump bus option included bus lanes determined infeasible due to right-of-way restrictions and impacts on roadway operation.

The bus option would increase transit mode share for commuters in the Stewart District and would have approximately 400 commuter riders per day at the proposed park and ride in the year 2035.


The Beacon Hybrid Alternative assumes an increase in the frequency of connecting bus service between Beacon Station and SWF Airport compared to the No-Build.

Travel time on the Beacon Hybrid Alternative can range up to 116 minutes, which is among the longest of all Build Alternatives serving Manhattan.



The Beacon Hybrid Alternative increases the transit mode share for air passengers and would have approximately 680 air passenger riders per day in year 2035.


The very modest commuter use of the Beacon alternatives will produce little if any reduction in energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions compared to the No-Build Alternative.

The bus alternative has little or no impact on either the natural or built environment.

Goal 4: Support smart residential and economic growth in the SWF Airport area, Orange County, and the region (Airport and Commuter markets).

Neither Beacon alternative provides transit infrastructure sufficient to significantly influence smart residential or economic growth in the area.


Preliminary capital costs for the bus option are approximately $6 million for the Airport Market and $18 million for Commuter Market (all costs in 2009 dollars). The differences in capital cost between the airport and Commuter Market for the bus option relate to the Route 17K park and ride for the Commuter Market and bus fleet size.

Preliminary annual O&M costs are $2 million for the Airport Market and $0.8 million for the Commuter Market (all costs in 2009 dollars).

Both alternatives are able to integrate with planned local bus routes that function as feeder services.

4.3.3 Conclusions

As documented in Appendix E, a comprehensive review was completed for this study. Based on the current level of conceptual design, environmental factors were not a differentiator among the alternatives. The key differentiators were, cost, travel time and ridership.

Therefore, for this stage of analysis, it was decided to narrow the focus of the evaluation to cost, travel time and ridership. This evaluation is discussed in detail in the following Chapter 5.

As the study progresses into Phase II, these environmental factors would be further assessed.



4.4 Additional Analyses During the study, several additional analyses were performed to help evaluate and asses what potential influence these studies could have on the alternatives and the Airport and Commuter markets.

The additional studies included;

Bus Only Ramp Considerations – This analysis considered several different locations for bus-only ramp off I-87 that would provide a more direct access to SWF from the south.

CRT Service Plan Sensitivity Tests – This analysis evaluated two additional options of improved service plan and considered their impact on ridership for both the Commuter and Airport Markets.

Air Passenger Sensitivity Tests – This analysis was performed to help understand how certain variations in the model inputs affect the number of passengers at SWF who originate in Manhattan and the impact of those passengers on transit mode share.

Comparables Airport Study – This analysis was performed to gain a perspective on the range of potential outcomes if SWF becomes a larger regional airport.

4.4.1 Bus-Only Ramp Considerations

Providing bus-only ramps to and from I-87 on the southeast side of SWF would result in more direct routing and significant travel time savings for buses traveling to and from the passenger terminal and points south, especially since passengers currently must use the circuitous route via I-84 and International Boulevard.

Four location options were considered for bus-only ramps between I-87 and SWF to and from points south of the airport using either Route 207 or new alignments north of Liner Road (Figures 4-13a, 4-13b, 4-13c, 4-13d).

1. Option 1: Bus-Only Ramp at Route 207;

2. Option 2: Bus-Only Ramp North of Liner Road;

3. Option 3: Bus-Only Ramp at Exit 17 Version 1; and

4. Option 4: Bus-Only Ramp at Exit 17 Version 2.



Note:

Node 1 is referred to location where I-87 crosses Route 207 Node 2 is referred to location of SWF terminal

Figure 4-13a Option 1 - Bus Only Ramp at Route 207

Figure 4-13b Option 2 - Bus Only Access from I-87 (via North of Liner Road)

Figure 4-13c Option 3 - Bus Only Access from I-87 at Exit 17 (Version 1)

Figure 4-13d Option 4 - Bus Only Access from I-87 at Exit 17 (Version 2)



Table 4-7 compares the estimated travel time to reach the SWF Airport terminal from the point where the Thruway crosses over Route 207 for each routing option, based on 2009 travel conditions, and also compares the magnitude capital costs of each option. Of the four ramp options considered, option 1 provides the shortest travel time with lowest capital investment. Ramp option 2 located north of Liner Road provides slightly longer travel time and higher capital cost because it requires a bus only roadway to reach the SWF Airport terminal. The two other ramp options located furthest to the north entail considerably longer travel time slower and are significantly more expensive to construct.

For the purpose of this study, the northbound (NB) bus-only ramp/deceleration lane proposed under Options 1, 2 and 3 was assumed to be one-mile in length so that it would not be mistaken as an off-ramp for general use. Furthermore, the one-mile length differentiates the bus-only ramp from the general purpose ramps of Exit 17 located within a mile of Route 207. Further engineering evaluation is required to determine the actual length of the bus-only ramp.

Table 4-7 Ramp Option Comparison Matrix

Option Description 2009 Travel Time from

Route 207 to SWF Terminal (minutes)

Capital Cost $millions ($2009)

1 Route 207 Direct 3 $66

2 North of Liner Road 4 $150

3 Exit 17 Interchange north of 17K – Version 1

7 $185

4 Exit 17 Interchange north of 17K – Version 2

8 $190

No-Build Existing route via I-84 & Drury Lane/Int’l Blvd

14 $0

During evaluation of ramp options it was concluded that Option 1 offers the shortest travel time between the point where I-87 intersects Route 207 (Node 1) and the SWF terminal (Node 2) at significantly lower capital cost. In addition Option 1 would shorten the travel time (from the south) to SWF by about 11 minutes compared to No-Build. The other ramp options would provide lesser travel time savings. Therefore, in the Level 2 screening all bus routes to and from points to the south were assumed to include ramp Option 1.

4.4.2 CRT Service Plans - Sensitivity Tests10

4.4.2.1 Commuter Market

The CRT Base Build service plan considered in the evaluation of the CRT alternatives may be too limited to provide convenient and adequate service for airport users. Therefore; two additional options with higher frequency service were considered and analyzed. Option 1 assumed 30 minute all-day headways between SWF and the 34th Street Station (34th Street)11. Option 2 assumed 60 minute headways to 34th Street. Under Option 2, service frequencies would be every 30 minutes at SWF with alternating service to Hoboken and 34th Street. These analyses were performed as “what if” cases to observe the ridership benefits of a more robust service plan on both the airport and commuter markets. In order to support

10 All the CRT Service Plans assume the ARC project. 11 34th Street refers to the new passenger terminal associated with the ARC project, located beneath West 34th Street adjacent to existing Penn Station New York.



these service levels, the current capacity and infrastructure of the PJL and NJT lines would need to be upgraded significantly.

The following is a summary of all rail service plans considered as part of the sensitivity analysis:

1. WHRTAS No-Build – Assumes 11 peak period trains south of Salisbury Mills-Cornwall (SMC) - 6 to Hoboken and 5 to 34th Street.

2. Base Build Service Plan (Base Scenario) - Assumes 11 peak period trains south of Salisbury Mills-Cornwall (SMC) of which 5 originate from SWF and 6 from Port Jervis (refer to Appendix C, Figure C-1).

3. Option 1 (30 Minute Headway to/from 34th Street) - Assumes 15 AM peak period trains south of SMC, 8 of which operate between SWF and 34th Street (refer to Appendix C, Figure C-2).

4. Option 2 (60 Minute Headway to 34th Street and Hoboken) - Assumes 15 AM peak period trains south of SMC, includes 4 trains in the AM peak period between SWF and 34th Street and 4 trains between SWF and Hoboken (refer to Appendix C, Figure C-3).

Table 4-8 shows the AM peak period for commuter market boarding forecasts by station and the number of trains by destination for the Base Build, Option 1 and Option 2 service plans, compared to WHRTAS No-Build.



Table 4-8 AM Peak Period Commuter Boarding Forecasts

AM Peak Period Commuter Boardings*

Station Year 2035 No-Build

1 2 3

Base Build Option 1 Option 2

Base Scenario 30 Minute

Headway to 34th Street

60 Minute Headway to 34th Street

and Hoboken

Port Jervis 100 100 200 200

Otisville 100 100 100 100

Middletown 1,500 1,600 1,400 1,400

Campbell Hall 200 200 200 200

SWF - 1,700 800 2,900 Salisbury Mills – Cornwall (SMC)

2,400 2,000 2,800 2,100

Harriman 1,300 1,200 1,700 1,800

Tuxedo 100 100 200 200

Total 5,700 7,000 7,400 8,900

Daily Total 16,300 20,000 21,200 25,500

Number of trains (peak period 4 hours)

SWF to Hoboken 2 4

SWF to 34th Street 3 8 4

Port Jervis to Hoboken 5 4 5 5

Port Jervis to 34th Street 6 2 2 2

Total 11 11 15 15

Total to Hoboken 6 6 5 9

Total to 34th St 5 5 10 6

* Analysis assumes ARC

Observations on Commuter Boardings:

1. Base Build (Original Build) – There are 1,700 peak period commuter boardings estimated at SWF. The drop in SMC boardings indicates diversions from that station. The diversions from the Hudson Line are estimated to be approximately 400 in the AM peak period.

2. Option 1 (30 Minute Headway to 34th Street) - The number of boardings in the AM peak period at SWF was estimated to be 800, considerably lower than in the Base Build scenario. This reduction can be attributed to the absence of service between SWF and Hoboken, which is a large transfer point for Lower Manhattan commuters and those destined to Hoboken and Jersey City. The increase in SMC and Harriman boardings, compared to the WHRTAS No-Build, is likely due to the increase in the number of trains to 34th Street (11 vs. 15).

3. Option 2 (60 Minute Headway to 34th Street and Hoboken) - The increase of SWF boardings is attributable to the combination of the higher frequency of trains leaving SWF and service to Hoboken. The high frequency of trains to Midtown Manhattan also attracts a significant number



(approximately 500 riders in the AM peak period) of west-of-Hudson commuters who previously boarded at Beacon station on the Hudson Line.

4.4.2.2 Airport Market

The year 2035 build alternatives and sensitivity forecast results show that the number of airport trips attracted to SWF from Manhattan is sensitive to the quality of the transit service to SWF. In the No-Build, approximately 327,000 total trips from Manhattan to SWF are forecast annually as shown in Table 4-9. Under Option 1, which provides 30 minute headways, the highest frequency rail service from 34th Street, over 462,000 trips are forecast from Manhattan, an increase of over 40% over the No-Build.

Table 4-9 2035 Annual Forecast of All Trips to SWF by Alternative*

* Analysis assumes ARC ** Includes total ridership via PJL and Hudson Line

Table 4-10 presents the mode shares to SWF by airport users by alternative. All of the transit investments realize a significant mode shift for trips from Manhattan. Under the Base Build case, direct rail and bus alternatives gain a similar share. However, as the frequency of the rail service improves to 30 minute headways from 34th Street Station to SWF, 47% of airport trips from Manhattan are made on transit.

**



Table 4-10 2035 Forecast Transit Mode Share to SWF by Alternative*


Tables 4-11 and 4-12 show the number of total daily trips of airport users by rail and bus (to and from SWF) by alternative. In the Build alternatives where commuter rail service to SWF is improved, almost all transit trips to SWF are by commuter rail.

Table 4-11 2035 Forecast Daily Transit Trips (Rail and Bus) to/from SWF by Alternative


**

**



Table 4-12 2035 Forecast Daily Transit Trips (commuter rail) to/from SWF by Alternative*


Summary of CRT Sensitivity Test for SWF station and PJL - Commuter and Airport Markets:

Table 4-13 summarizes the results of the CRT sensitivity analysis for both the Airport and Commuter Markets at SWF, and the ridership on the PJL compared to the No-Build. The analysis indicates that at SWF station, Service Plan - Option 1 is most attractive to airport market while Option 2 is most attractive to commuter market with a combined airport and commuter market net increase on the PJL of 9,900 riders over the No-Build. The formula used to convert AM peak period to daily ridership at a particular station was “(station ridership)/0.92*2” based on current observed data in stations and their vicinity.

Table 4-13 Results12 of Sensitivity Testing of Commuter Rail Operating Plans (Daily Ridership Year 2035)

CRT Service Plan Options

SWF Port Jervis through Tuxedo including SWF

Station

Commuter Market

Airport Market

Total Commuter

Market Only

Commuter and Airport

Markets

Net Increase in Transit

Ridership*

No-Build - 400 400 16,400 16,800 -

Base Build - Direct Rail

3,700 1,100** 4,800 20,400 21,500 4,700

Option 1 - 30 minute headway to 34th

Street 1,700 1,700** 3,400 21,100 22,800 6,000

Option 2 - 60 minute Split to 34th Street

and Hoboken 6,300 1,400** 7,700 25,300 26,700 9,900

* Combined commuter and airport markets compared to No-Build ** Includes up to 400 diversion from Beacon (Hudson Line)

12 Analysis assumes ARC implementation.

**



4.4.3 Year 2035 Air Passenger Sensitivity Tests

Further air passenger demand sensitivity tests were conducted in which model inputs that affect air demand at SWF were varied within a plausible range. The objective of these tests was to understand how variations in the model inputs affect model outputs such as the number of passengers at SWF who originate in Manhattan and the transit mode share of those passengers. Each of the tests was based on the same transportation alternative to isolate the effect of the model input assumptions from the effect of differences between the alternatives.

The demand sensitivity tests varied model inputs that the stated preference survey, model estimation and comparable airports analysis have shown to affect airport and mode choice. The inputs and their ranges are described below along with their key results.

1. Air ticket prices at SWF

2.

: In the baseline run, tickets at SWF are priced $50 lower than at the three large airports in the New York region (JFK, Newark Liberty, and La Guardia). In this sensitivity test, air tickets are the same price at SWF. In this test, there is only a small reduction in the number of trips from Manhattan. This is an expected result since the cheaper tickets are available to those traveling from all parts of the region.

Taxi fares and drop off travel times

3.

: Mode choice for the trip between Manhattan and SWF is sensitive to: 1) taxi fares; and 2) the time spent by friends or family dropping off a traveler at SWF and returning to their trip origin. This scenario includes a taxi fare increase from $2 per mile to $3 per mile (resulting in a taxi fare of approximately $200), and a travel time for dropping off an air traveler that includes the return trip made after dropping off the air traveler. The results showed a reduction in the mode share for taxi and drop off and a corresponding increase in the mode share for transit. However, this scenario does result in fewer trips from Manhattan to SWF overall as the average cost and travel time across all modes for the trip have increased. Table 4-14 shows mode shares for the baseline and high taxi fare and high drop off time scenarios.

Proportion of resident verses non‐resident passengers

4.

: Two scenarios were tested, the first with 40% resident and 60% non‐resident trips to SWF and the second with 80% residents and 20% non‐residents, to compare with the base scenario of 60% resident and 40% non‐residents. The results showed a strong increase in trips from Manhattan if the airport is successful in attracting a higher number of non‐resident passengers.

Value of time of travelers using SWF

5.

: Those typically attracted to low-cost carrier service are more cost sensitive than other air travelers and therefore have lower values of time. The sensitivity tests present results with SWF users having 70% of the average value of time and 85% of the average value of time. As values of time decrease, more trips are attracted to SWF from Manhattan.

Duration of stay (i.e. number of nights between outward flight and return flight): If SWF travelers are assumed to make a 20% longer stay, more Manhattan-bound travelers are likely to use SWF. Following the demand sensitivity tests that were based on individual model inputs, additional tests were carried out where the four of the model inputs were jointly varied to estimate an upper bound forecast for trips from Manhattan, called “focus on Manhattan”. In this test, it was assumed that only 40% of trips at SWF would be made by residents; the flight distribution from SWF would be similar to the demand for travelers going to Manhattan (i.e. additional long-haul domestic and transatlantic flights, and fewer flights to the southeastern U.S.), average duration of stay would be 20% longer, SWF users would have 70% of the average value of time, and there would be a $75



dollar savings on air tickets at SWF compared to the other metropolitan airports. In this scenario, the number of trips from Manhattan to SWF increases almost 700,000, and the overall two‐way transit trips to SWF reaches over 2,800 trips per day, both approximately 50% more than the base scenario.

Table 4-14 Mode Shares for Baseline and High Taxi Fare and High Drop Off Time

4.4.4 Comparable Airports Study

A study comparing airports similar to the Port Authority’s vision for SWF was conducted to gain a perspective on the range of potential outcomes if SWF becomes a larger regional airport.

The study focused on a variety of airports in large metropolitan regions, similar to SWF in terms of size of the airport, the relative share of the overall travel market served by the airport, their distance from the major city center, and characteristics of the air travel market adjacent the airport. In particular, the analysis considered ground access trip distribution and access mode choice behaviors for passengers using satellite airports in major metropolitan areas in the United States and Europe. The airports that were selected included Stansted Airport (London), Frankfurt Hahn (Frankfurt), Baltimore Airport (Maryland), Islip Airport (New York), Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (Manchester, New Hampshire) and T.F. Green Airport (Providence, Rhode Island). While each of these airports is different from the vision for SWF, it is thought that collectively they are useful in helping identify a reasonable market for SWF.

This comparable airports analysis focused on collecting and analyzing the following information:

• Percent of resident vs. non‐resident ground access trips; • Percent of business vs. leisure trips; • Distribution of ground access/egress trips by geography (i.e. what % is headed to the major

metro CBD); and • Mode shares, if possible, distinguishing rail from express/shuttle bus.

The Frankfurt Hahn and Stansted airport markets appear to be most similar to the New York market. One key difference of these airports compared to one possible vision for SWF is the lack of rail service between the SWF and the central city (with the exception of Stansted which has rail service and Islip which uses a connecting shuttle bus and focuses service on commuters and peak periods). Another key



difference, with the exception of Frankfurt Hahn, is that the vision for SWF includes international service to Europe and Latin America. London Stansted, with its relative proximity to London and status as a very large airport, gains a significant portion of the London air travel market via its rail and bus services. Frankfurt Hahn, which is relatively distant from Frankfurt and much smaller than Frankfurt Main Airport (FRA), serves the regional market to the west of Frankfurt, attracts a relatively small portion of the Frankfurt metropolitan market and also serves more distant surrounding cities such as Cologne. Interestingly, both Stansted and Frankfurt Hahn serve primarily a residential market. Furthermore, this study revealed that 60‐80% of the passengers at comparable airports were residents of their region, and that 60‐80% of travel was for leisure purposes. Accounting for differences in the size of the comparable airports (relative to SWF), the airports attract 200,000 to 800,000 originating enplanements per year from their central cities. The range of mode shares to the central city is quite large. However, the public transit and private shuttle mode shares to the CBD for airports connected with at least hourly scheduled service approaches and in some cases exceeds 50%. The comparables analysis shows that both the demand generated from the central city and the mode share are sensitive to the quality of the transportation links. There are two comparable airports that reach the equivalent of 800,000 enplanements from the central city, Stansted and BWI. These two airports are relatively close and very well connected to the central city compared to the local competition, which makes them stand out amongst the other comparable airports in terms of their competitiveness in their respective central city markets. At the lower end of the range, equivalent to around 200,000 enplanements from the central city, Islip and the combination of Manchester-Boston and T.F. Green Airports, have relatively weak transit links to their central cities. Falling in between the two ends of the range is Frankfurt Hahn, with an equivalent of approximately 500,000 enplanements from the central city. Stansted has very high transit mode shares of 80% to central London and 60‐70% to its suburbs. While rail is very prominent, so is privately operated bus service. BWI, in contrast, has a 20% transit share to Washington DC, not including private shuttle bus services. Islip and Frankfurt Hahn are somewhere in between with mode shares in excess of 50% to the central city. The potential presence of privately operated bus service competing with rail for transit passengers is an important consideration for the Manhattan to SWF market. 4.4.4.1.1 Summary of Air Passenger Results

SWF in the future is expected to serve a broad geographic market, in many ways similar to the market served by Hahn Airport outside of Frankfurt, Germany. Like Hahn, SWF is assumed to operate primarily as an airport serving discount air travelers, in part to offset the access time and cost associated with getting to the airport. Additionally, SWF is over 50 miles away from the nearest major airport and would likely serve a resident airport market that is generally north of Manhattan and northwest of Newark. The combination of these two factors, the mix of low cost service and the location relative to other airports, results in a distribution of ground access demand for SWF that stretches from Albany to northern New Jersey and from New York City to Connecticut. The rail transit alternatives analyzed in this study focused primarily on improving the connection between SWF and Manhattan and between SWF and Hudson County, NJ. The bus alternatives served a much broader geography east, west, north and south of the airport. As was shown in the Frankfurt Hahn and Stansted case studies, users of airports with discount airlines far from a central city are more likely to use transit (bus and rail). Interestingly, travelers between Manhattan and SWF would also use transit to a greater degree, regardless of the transit investment proposed, though the rail investments do serve the highest share of the Manhattan market.



Based on this analysis, it is estimated that the average airfare at SWF would need to be between 30‐40% lower than the airfare at JFK, Newark Liberty (EWR), and La Guardia (LGA) airports to attract a market on the order of 3.5 million originating enplanements per year. This would amount to approximately $100 to $125 off a domestic round trip ticket based on average domestic ticket prices of about $300 at the aforementioned airports. This order-of-magnitude estimate is consistent with the types of cost savings that can typically be achieved for passengers traveling via the low cost hubs in the European examples. Additionally, since accessing SWF would take approximately an hour more from Manhattan (compared to JFK, EWR or LGA), a $50 one‐way airfare difference is sufficient to offset the equivalent value of that hour for many travelers, particularly those traveling for leisure purposes.

The overall demand between SWF and Manhattan (300,000 to 500,000, depending on transportation alternative) falls within the range identified in the analysis of comparable airports. Public transit mode share estimated for SWF trips from Manhattan is estimated to be between 25% and 65%, depending on the transit investment and the costs and travel times assumed for competing modes. It is important to note that this share does not include privately operated shuttle and vanpool services which are quite common and competitive in the long distance air travel market. These are forecast to capture around a 10% mode share from trips between SWF and Manhattan.



This page intentionally left blank.

4 level 2 screening - mtaweb.mta.info/mta/planning/whrtas/pdf/chapter_4_level_2_screening.pdf4 level...

Documents