NYMTC's 2017 Congestion Management Process Status Report by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL ADOPTED ON JUNE 29, 2017

2017 STATUS REPORT

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Disclaimer The preparation of this report has been financed through the U.S. Department of Transportationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration or the State of New York. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.

Title VI Statement The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council is committed to compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and all related rules and statutes. NYMTC assures that no person or group(s) of persons shall, on the grounds of race, color, age, disability, national origin, gender, or income status, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any and all programs, services, or activities administered by NYMTC, whether those programs and activities are federally funded or not. It is also the policy of NYMTC to ensure that all of its programs, polices, and other activities do not have disproportionate adverse effects on minority and low income populations. Additionally, NYMTC will provide meaningful access to services for persons with Limited English Proficiency.

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... I 1

OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 1-1

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ................................................... 2-1 2.1 SOURCES OF CONGESTION ............................................................................................ 2-2

THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS........................................................ 3-1 3.1 PLAN 2045 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 3-2 3.2 THE CMP IN CONTEXT ................................................................................................... 3-3

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 4-1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

ANALYSIS TOOLS ........................................................................................................... 4-1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ............................................................................................ 4-2 DATA COLLECTION......................................................................................................... 4-3 CONGESTION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 4-4

REGIONAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 COMPARISONS OF CONGESTION ..................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ............................................................................................ 5-5 5.3 CRITICALLY CONGESTED ROADWAY CORRIDORS IN 2045 .............................................. 5-18

COUNTY/BOROUGH CONGESTION ANALYSIS ...................................................... 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10

BRONX .......................................................................................................................... 6-2 BROOKLYN .................................................................................................................... 6-9 MANHATTAN ................................................................................................................ 6-17 NASSAU ...................................................................................................................... 6-24 PUTNAM ...................................................................................................................... 6-31 QUEENS ...................................................................................................................... 6-35 ROCKLAND .................................................................................................................. 6-42 STATEN ISLAND ........................................................................................................... 6-48 SUFFOLK ..................................................................................................................... 6-54 W ESTCHESTER ............................................................................................................ 6-61

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .......................................................... 7-1

APPENDIX A:

CMP TOOLBOX STRATEGIES ...............................................................A-1

APPENDIX B:

TSM & O PROJECTS IN THE NYMTC PLANNING AREA ...........................B-1

APPENDIX C:

CONGESTED CORRIDOR SCREENING WORKSHEET ...................................C-1

List of Figures Figure 1.1 - Map of NYMTC Region ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 Figure 2.1 - National Distribution of Sources of Congestion .................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 3.1 - Actions Commonly Part of a Congestion Management Process ........................................................ 3-2 Figure 3.2 - CMP and the Metropolitan Planning Process ..................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 5.1 - Travel Volumes in New York and Comparable Metro Areas .............................................................. 5-2 Figure 5.2 - Measures of Systemwide Congestion ................................................................................................. 5-3 Figure 5.3 - Per Capita Annual Hours of Delay ...................................................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5.4 - Comparison of Travel Time Indices across U.S. Cities ...................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5.5 - NYMTC Planning Area Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay by County........................................................ 5-9 Figure 5.6 - NYMTC Planning Area Daily Person Hours of Delay by County ........................................................ 5-9 Figure 5.7 - NYMTC Planning Area Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled by County ...................................................... 5-10 Figure 5.8 - Reliability on Select Highway Corridors in the NYMTC Region ........................................................ 5-12 Figure 5.9 - 2017 Jobs Accessible Within a 45 Minute Drive during a Morning Peak Commute ......................... 5-14 Figure 5.10 - 2045 Jobs Accessible Within a 45 Minute Drive during a Morning Peak Commute ....................... 5-15 Figure 5.11 - Top Congested Corridors New York City ........................................................................................ 5-18 Figure 5.12 - Top Congested Corridors Long Island ............................................................................................ 5-19 Figure 5.13 - Top Congested Corridors Lower Hudson Valley ............................................................................ 5-19 Figure 6.1 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Bronx ..................................................................................... 6-3 Figure 6.2 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Bronx and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area ........... 6-3 Figure 6.3 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Bronx .................................................................................. 6-7 Figure 6.4 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Bronx .................................................................................. 6-8 Figure 6.5 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Brooklyn .............................................................................. 6-10 Figure 6.6 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Brooklyn and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area .... 6-10 Figure 6.7 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Brooklyn ........................................................................... 6-15 Figure 6.8 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Brooklyn ........................................................................... 6-16 Figure 6.9 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Manhattan ........................................................................... 6-18 Figure 6.10 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Manhattan and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area 6-18 Figure 6.11 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Manhattan ...................................................................... 6-22 Figure 6.12 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Manhattan ...................................................................... 6-23 Figure 6.13 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Nassau .............................................................................. 6-25 Figure 6.14 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Nassau and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area .... 6-25 Figure 6.15 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Nassau ........................................................................... 6-29 Figure 6.16 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Nassau ........................................................................... 6-30 Figure 6.17 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Putnam .............................................................................. 6-32 Figure 6.18 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Putnam and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area .... 6-32 Figure 6.19 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Queens.............................................................................. 6-36 Figure 6.20 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Queens and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area .... 6-36 Figure 6.21 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Queens ........................................................................... 6-40 Figure 6.22 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Queens ........................................................................... 6-41 Figure 6.23 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Rockland ........................................................................... 6-43 Figure 6.24 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Rockland and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area . 6-43 Figure 6.25 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Rockland ........................................................................ 6-46

Figure 6.26 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Rockland ........................................................................ 6-47 Figure 6.27 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Staten Island ..................................................................... 6-49 Figure 6.28 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Staten Island and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area 649 Figure 6.29 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Staten Island .................................................................. 6-52 Figure 6.30 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Staten Island .................................................................. 6-53 Figure 6.31 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Suffolk ............................................................................... 6-55 Figure 6.32 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Suffolk and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area ..... 6-55 Figure 6.33 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Suffolk ............................................................................ 6-59 Figure 6.34 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Suffolk ............................................................................ 6-60 Figure 6.35 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Westchester ...................................................................... 6-62 Figure 6.36 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Westchester and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area 662 Figure 6.37 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Westchester ................................................................... 6-65 Figure 6.38 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Westchester ................................................................... 6-66

List of Tables Table 5.1 - Comparison of Daily VMT per Capita and Travel Time Index.............................................................. 5-1 Table 5.2 - 2017 Regional Performance Measures ................................................................................................ 5-6 Table 5.3 - 2045 Regional Performance Measures ................................................................................................ 5-7 Table 5.4 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 .................................................................................. 5-8 Table 5.5 - Commodity Flow by Direction for NYMTC Planning Area All Modes, 2012 and 2045....................... 5-17 Table 5.6 - Commodity Flow by Mode for NYMTC Planning Area All Modes, 2012 and 2045 ............................ 5-18 Table 6.1 - 2017 Performance Measures, Bronx ................................................................................................... 6-4 Table 6.2 - 2045 Performance Measures, Bronx ................................................................................................... 6-4 Table 6.3 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Bronx................................ 6-5 Table 6.4 - 2017 Performance Measures, Brooklyn ............................................................................................. 6-11 Table 6.5 - 2045 Performance Measures, Brooklyn ............................................................................................. 6-11 Table 6.6 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Brooklyn ......................... 6-12 Table 6.7 - 2017 Performance Measures, Manhattan .......................................................................................... 6-19 Table 6.8 - 2045 Performance Measures, Manhattan .......................................................................................... 6-19 Table 6.9 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Manhattan ...................... 6-20 Table 6.10 - 2017 Performance Measures, Nassau ............................................................................................. 6-26 Table 6.11 - 2045 Performance Measures, Nassau ............................................................................................. 6-26 Table 6.12 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Nassau ......................... 6-27 Table 6.13 - 2017 Performance Measures, Putnam ............................................................................................ 6-33 Table 6.14 - 2045 Performance Measures, Putnam ............................................................................................ 6-33 Table 6.15 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Putnam ........................ 6-34 Table 6.16 - 2017 Performance Measures, Queens ............................................................................................ 6-37 Table 6.17 - 2045 Performance Measures, Queens ............................................................................................ 6-37 Table 6.18 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Queens ........................ 6-38 Table 6.19 - 2017 Performance Measures, Rockland .......................................................................................... 6-44 Table 6.20 - 2045 Performance Measures, Rockland .......................................................................................... 6-44 Table 6.21 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Rockland ...................... 6-45 Table 6.22 - 2017 Performance Measures, Staten Island .................................................................................... 6-50 Table 6.23 - 2045 Performance Measures, Staten Island .................................................................................... 6-50 Table 6.24 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Staten Island ................ 6-51 Table 6.25 - 2017 Performance Measures, Suffolk .............................................................................................. 6-56 Table 6.26 - 2045 Performance Measures, Suffolk .............................................................................................. 6-56 Table 6.27 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Suffolk .......................... 6-57 Table 6.28 - 2017 Performance Measures, Westchester ..................................................................................... 6-63 Table 6.29 - 2045 Performance Measures, Westchester ..................................................................................... 6-63 Table 6.30 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Westchester ................. 6-64

INTRODUCTION Under current federal planning regulations, metropolitan areas with populations greater than 200,000 are designated as Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) and are required to engage in a Congestion Management Process (CMP) to provide for “safe and effective integrated management and operation of the transportation system” (Sections 23 CFR 450.320 and 23 CFR 500.105). The CMP is required to include 1) methods to monitor and evaluate performance, 2) definition of congestion management objectives, 3) establishment of data collection and system performance monitoring programs, 4) identification and evaluation of performance and benefits of management strategies, 5) identification of an implementation schedule and responsibilities, and 6) a process for periodic assessment of the effectiveness of implemented strategies. The planning area of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s (NYMTC) meets the federal definition of a TMA. Therefore, NYMTC must systematically forecast traffic congestion in its planning area, produce specific performance measurements to identify levels of congestion, and prepare a program to reduce that congestion. NYMTC’s CMP fulfills these requirements and identifies strategies for congestion reduction as defined through its Regional Transportation Plan (Plan) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). NYMTC’s CMP Operating Procedures stipulate that a status report should be issued every four years with each new Plan. The first CMP Status Report was issued in 2005. This 2017 CMP Status Report, organized into the following seven sections, has been developed in conjunction with NYMTC’s Plan 2045: •

An introduction, which summarizes the purpose of the CMP and the work conducted to produce the status report.

•

Section 2 describes the transportation characteristics within the NYMTC planning area.

•

Section 3 describes the federal regulations related to NYMTC’s CMP.

•

Section 4 describes the methodology used for the CMP analysis, including tools used for analyzing congestion, selected performance measures, types of analysis performed, and reporting periods and scenarios are described.

•

Sections 5 and 1 present the results of the CMP analysis at two levels – regional in Section 5 and county/borough-level in Section 1. In response to the CMP analysis results, a description of the strategies committed to and further discussed in the Plan, as well as a toolbox of strategies for mitigating congestion is provided.

1 OVERVIEW NYMTC is a regional council designated by the Governor of the State of New York and certified by the federal government as the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for New York City, suburban Long Island, and the lower Hudson Valley. The NYMTC planning area includes ten counties (five suburban counties and the five boroughs of New York City) with an area of approximately 2,440 square miles and a population of close to 12.4 million people (64 percent of the population of New York State). Figure 1.1 presents the counties of the NYMTC region.

Figure 1.1 - Map of NYMTC Region

Designated in 1982, NYMTC provides a collaborative forum for regional transportation planning for sixteen members. Those members include five suburban counties (Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam) and the City of New York as represented by the New York City Department of Transportation and the New York City Department of City Planning, the New York State Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and seven advisory members, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. NYMTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Plan, entitled Plan 2045, acknowledges that roadway congestion will continue to be a major issue in the NYMTC planning area, given the increased demand on the transportation system from forecasted population, employment and economic growth. The CMP is intended to help NYMTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s members to: (a) monitor and advise the regional planning processes by establishing an objective set of performance measures to define and quantify transportation system congestion; (b) provide a toolbox of strategies to address congestion; (c) provide a

1-1

methodology to evaluate and prioritize congestion-reducing projects and strategies, and (d) provided a mechanism to periodically assess the effectiveness of implemented strategies relative to previously established performance measures. 1 The 2017 CMP Status Report is organized into seven sections. Following this Overview, Section 2 describes the characteristics of the transportation system in the NYMTC planning area. Section 3 describes the relationship between federal regulations and elements of NYMTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planning and programming process, including the CMP. Section 4 describes the methodology used for the CMP analysis, including tools used for analyzing congestion, selected performance measures, types of analysis performed, and reporting periods and scenarios are described. The results of the CMP analysis are provided at two levels â&#x20AC;&#x201C; regional and county/borough-level â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in Sections 5 and 1, respectively. In response to the CMP analysis results, Section 7 describes the strategies committed to and further discussed in the Plan. Appendix A contains a toolbox of strategies for mitigating congestion, while Appendix B contains a worksheet summarizing the characteristics of the most congested corridors in each county or borough in the region.

Cambridge Systematics, 2008. The Congestion Management Process: Washington, D.C.

A Guidebook. Federal Highway Administration,

1-2

2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS New York City’s metropolitan region has one of the oldest, largest, most complex and highly utilized transportation networks in the world. On a typical weekday, the region’s multimodal transportation network handles millions of passenger trips and thousands of tons of freight shipments. The share of travelers using public transportation is much higher than in other regions of the United States.

The NYMTC planning area is served by intercity rail, road, air, and waterborne networks. Amtrak’s busiest intercity station in the nation is Penn Station in Manhattan, which served roughly 10.2 million passengers in 2015. The Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan has long been a primary location for long-distance bus service. In addition, since the late 1990s, curbside-pickup intercity carriers have played an increasing role in transporting bus passengers beyond the region. The multi-state metropolitan region includes several major commercial service airports, including the John F. Kennedy (JFK) and LaGuardia (LGA) airports in New York City, Newark Liberty in northern New Jersey and several other reliever and general aviation airports and heliport facilities of varying sizes that together serve millions of passengers and ship tons of freight both within and immediately beyond NYMTC’s planning area. Finally, New York

2-1

and New Jersey host port facilities that are essential to international trade and domestic distribution with one of the largest concentrations of public and private marine terminal facilities in the United States. Adjacent to NYMTC’s planning area, the northern New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut sub-regions contain transportation infrastructure that is inextricably linked with the New York sub-region. New Jersey Transit operates an extensive network of commuter rail, light rail and bus services, including services which enter the NYMTC planning area. New Jersey’s highways interface with New York at six bridges and tunnels, along with roads that cross the state line into Rockland County. Connecticut contracts with the MTA Metro-North Railroad to operate service on the New Haven Line and Connecticut Transit operates regional bus routes such as the I-Bus linking Stamford, CT with White Plains, NY. Numerous roads, bridges and tunnels or all functional classifications also cross state lines, and ferries regularly cross from New Jersey and Connecticut to New York destinations. A summary description of the multi-state transportation network can be found in Chapter 1 of Plan 2045.

2.1 Sources of Congestion Congestion occurs when a transportation facility or service experiences demand that exceeds the capacities of the facilities or services. This results in overcrowded facilities and services, reduced throughput, reduced travel speeds, increased travel time, and increased crashes and incidents. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines seven categories of the causes of traffic congestion: •

Physical Bottlenecks – where demand exceeds capacity: along roadways at intersections, interchanges, transit facilities (not represented in Table 1 statistics)

•

Traffic Incidents – non-recurring event that causes a reduction of roadway capacity or an abnormal increase in demand (i.e., crashes, disabled vehicles) 2

•

Weather – weather events such as snow storms or flooding due to rainfall

•

Work Zones – construction activities on the roadway that temporarily reduce capacity like lane reductions, lane shifts, and detours

•

Special Events – events that create a surge in traffic beyond normal traffic patterns such as sporting events, concerts, street festivals, visiting dignitaries

•

Traffic Demand and Flow Fluctuations – day-to-day variability in traffic and peaking of demand which can be as much as 15 to 20% on an individual roadway depending on day of week

•

Traffic Operations – disruption of traffic flow due to non-optimized or non-integrated signals and/or insufficient intersection capacity

The national averages in Figure 2.1 provide insights with regard to the sources of traffic congestion. It is no mystery that bottlenecks (40 percent) are the greatest source of congestion. It is probably not surprising that traffic cause 25 percent of congestion, but improvements in incident detection and systems management tools can bring this number down. In the NYMTC planning area, signal timing may contribute more than 5 percent as the signal density is greater than in most cities in the United States. The NYMTC planning area is a huge attraction for tourists and special events. In 2015, 58.5 million visited New York City generating over $42 billion in spending. 3 It is probably

Traffic Incident Management Handbook, Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2000

NYC Travel & Tourism Visitation Statistics, 2015

2-2

safe to assume that congestion from special events in the NYMTC planning area probably contributes more than 5 percent to total congestion in the region.

Figure 2.1 - National Distribution of Sources of Congestion 4

There are several specific factors/issues that contribute to traffic congestion in the NYMTC planning area, including: •

The region’s topography. NYMTC’s planning area includes three large islands (Staten Island, Manhattan Island and Long Island) which, along with the Hudson River and Long Island Sound, create the need for numerous water crossings for roadways, rail lines and waterborne services. Limitations to the capacity of these crossings create congestion.

•

Major transportation hubs, such as the regional and international airports in and around the NYMTC planning area, as well as major rail and bus stations and port facilities. Traffic to and from these transportation hubs creates major congestion issues along roadways and on rail lines.

•

Large event venues, such as stadiums and arenas that generate considerable vehicle, transit and foot traffic.

•

Tourist and recreational attractions, generating considerable visitor traffic on the public transit system and the pedestrian network, as well as on roadways.

•

Significant goods movement, whether by truck, rail or barge, moving into, out of, within and through the NYMTC planning area.

Figure ES.2 The Sources of Congestion National Summary, FHWA

2-3

3 THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS The CMP is required to include 1) methods to monitor and evaluate performance, 2) definition of congestion management objectives, 3) establishment of data collection and system performance monitoring programs, 4) identification and evaluation of performance and benefits of management strategies, 5) identification of an implementation schedule and responsibilities, and 6) a process for periodic assessment of the effectiveness of implemented strategies. The CMP also includes requirements for the addition of roadway capacity in specific corridors or locations, including: •

All reasonable, multi-modal Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSM&O) strategies must be analyzed in corridors where roadway capacity increase is proposed;

•

If the analysis demonstrates that the TSM&O strategies cannot offset the need for additional capacity, the CMP shall identify all reasonable strategies for managing the increased roadway capacity effectively;

•

All TSM&O strategies identified in the CMP shall be incorporated into roadway capacity projects or committed to by the State and the MPO; and

•

Federal funds may not be programmed in a non-attainment TMA for any roadway capacity project unless based on an approved CMP.

Consistent with federal requirements, NYMTC’s CMP is a systematic process for planning to address system-level and corridor-level congestion by exploring the basic questions of where, when, and to what extent congestion occurs. The CMP also identifies strategies that can be considered by NYMTC’s members for reducing and managing congestion. NYMTC’s CMP is one component of the metropolitan transportation planning process and congestion, although very important, is not the sole factor under consideration when planning the priority of transportation improvements. The proper role of the CMP is as a specific element that adds value to the planning process by providing agencies, the public and decision-makers with a tool by which congestion can be examined in greater detail and more effectively addressed. In 2011, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued an advisory document entitled Congestion Management Process: A Guidebook. 5 The Guidebook is intended to provide guidance on “how to create an objectives driven, performance-based” Congestion Management Process. The Guidebook sets out an eight step Process Model comprised of elements or “actions” common to successful CMPs. The actions, shown in Figure 3.1, are considered essential to CMP formulation, but can be performed in varying sequences and, potentially, iteratively.

Federal Highway Administration. Congestion Management Process: A Guidebook. Washington, D.C., 2011.

3-1

Figure 3.1 - Actions Commonly Part of a Congestion Management Process Develop Regional Objectives Define CMP Network Develop Multimodal Performance Measures Collect Data/Monitor System Performance Analyze Congestion Problems and Needs Identify and Assess Strategies Program and Implement Strategies Evaluate Strategy Effectiveness Source: FHWA, 2011.

The Guidebook provides in-depth reviews of the recommended considerations, processes, and partners that should be involved in formulating each action. Of particular applicability to NYMTC are the actions that underpin and promote performance-based CMP development: Action 1 (develop regional objectives), Action 3 (develop multimodal performance measures), Action 6 (identify and assess strategies), and Action 8 (evaluate strategy effectiveness). The Guidebook includes a companion document that focuses on the visualization of results.

3.1 Plan 2045 Strategic Framework NYMTC’s Plan 2045 includes a set of regional strategic goals along with specific desired outcomes and near-term actions. The eight shared goals are: •

Enhance the regional environment;

•

Improve the regional economy;

•

Improve the regional quality of life;

•

Provide a convenient and flexible transportation system within the region;

•

Enhance the safety and security of the transportation system for both motorized and non-motorized users;

•

Improve the resiliency of the regional transportation system;

•

Build the case for obtaining resources to implement regional investments; and

•

Preserve the existing transportation system.

3-2

Several desired outcomes under these goals are directly related to the CMP. They include the following: •

•

Desired outcomes under the regional strategic goal “Enhance the Regional Economy”: –

Reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality; and

–

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Desired outcomes under the regional strategic goal “Provide a Convenient and Flexible Transportation System within the Region”: –

A sufficient array of transportation choices;

–

Expanded connections, particularly across modes and between communities; and

–

Increased reliability for passenger and freight trips.

In order to pursue these relevant goals and desired outcomes, NYMTC’s CMP has been designed to provide and make available: •

Performance measures for regional levels of traffic delay and congestion;

•

Data and procedures for measuring changes in regional traffic conditions;

•

Forecasts of future congestion levels derived from the Plan’s regional population and employment forecasts;

•

A catalogue of strategies for reducing and managing congestion; and

•

County/Borough-level and corridor-level forecasts of congestion.

3.2 The CMP in Context Roadway traffic congestion occurs when vehicle volumes exceed the available capacity of the roadway. Generally, traffic congestion can be categorized as either recurring or nonrecurring. Recurring traffic congestion is caused by the predictable daily use of roadways for work, school, services, and leisure activities. Recurring congestion is exacerbated as demand for road space continues to grow through population and job growth, decreasing land use densities, higher rates of automobile ownership, and rapid growth in truck freight. In contrast, nonrecurring traffic congestion is caused by atypical events, such as highway crashes, other incidents that close lanes or roads, weather conditions, or an increase in traffic demand caused by special events. According to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, the New York area has five of the top 20 ranked corridors for least reliable travel based on weekday peak period travel time reliability. New York also had the second highest number of corridors (nine) ranked for truck delay. Traffic congestion is a significant impediment to mobility in the NYMTC planning area and has many negative effects, including increased fuel consumption, air quality impacts, increased vehicular travel costs, and increased costs for shipping goods. As explained in the Section 4 Analysis Methodology, the CMP has been designed to make use of the New York Best Practice Model (NYBPM), which is NYMTC’s regional transportation demand simulation model, to develop forecasts of congestion-related performance measures, and to integrate the findings of the CMP into NYMTC’s metropolitan transportation planning process.

3-3

The CMP procedures closely integrate the CMP with the metropolitan transportation planning process, as illustrated in Figure 3.2. The CMP is integrated into the planning process as part of the development of the following regional planning and programming documents: •

The Plan, which defines the region’s transportation needs and lays out a long range planning framework for improving the transportation system over a minimum of a twenty-year period;

•

The TIP, which is a five-year program of all proposed federally funded transportation projects in the NYMTC region; and

•

The Unified Planning Work Program, which defines NYMTC’s annual planning activities.

The CMP involves the direct participation of NYMTC’s member agencies. At the regional level, the New York Best Practice Model (NYBPM) is the demand modelling tool used for estimating the extent of existing traffic congestion and forecasting the level of future congestion. At the subarea or corridor-level, other appropriate technical tools are also utilized to meet CMP requirements, as described in detail in Section 4. For selected congestion locations, NYMTC’s CMP provides a toolbox of strategies to address congestion for consideration by the member agencies (see Section 7 and Appendix A). The member agencies propose mitigation projects utilizing the feasible strategies identified through the CMP. This process is repeated every planning cycle, or as needed by the members. Thus, it is both an interactive and iterative process. System monitoring and data collection are also critical elements of the integration of CMP into NYMTC’s overall planning process. Monitoring and data collection efforts provide feedback on the effectiveness of strategies at various levels, which ultimately influences regional policy, planning, and programming of projects for addressing congestion. The CMP can also be an important input into the development of major project analyses and subarea or corridor studies. First, it provides county/-borough-level and corridor-level performance information, which may be used to target corridors or locations for detailed analysis. Second, the CMP toolbox identifies alternative congestion management strategies for consideration in studies of this type, which ultimately define transportation improvements. This does not preclude the study from considering other strategies that may not be in the CMP, nor does it require that the study select a strategy from the CMP as the preferred alternative.

3-4

Figure 3.2 - CMP and the Metropolitan Planning Process

3-5

4 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY This section outlines the methodology used to identify and quantify congestion in the NYMTC planning area. It includes an overview of the transportation area and network, tools used to analyze congestion, the NYBPM, selected performance measures, types of congestion analysis, and reporting periods and scenarios. NYMTC’s CMP is applicable to the entire 10-county planning area. Within that area, the CMP is focused on the roadway system— specifically, all roadway functional classes from freeways to minor arterial roadways.

4.1 Analysis Tools The NYBPM, used with a travel demand model post processor, is the analysis tool used to forecast and analyze traffic congestion within the NYMTC planning area. The NYBPM is a suite of activity-based travel demand forecasting sub-models that contains a coded representation of the transportation system—both roadways and transit services—in 28 contiguous counties in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, including the 10-county NYMTC planning area. The roadway network in the NYBPM is represented by over 60,000 highway links, and the transit network is represented through over 4,000 transit routes that include route variations for all forms of public transportation, such as commuter rail, subway, express bus, local bus, and ferry. The NYBPM can be used to forecast travel patterns by time periods, trip purposes, and modes of travel. 6 The NYBPM employs the following input data: •

Socioeconomic and Demographic (SED) forecasts – household, population, and employment county forecasts disaggregated to 16 variables at the NYBPM zonal level, with future year forecasts extending to 2045;

•

Census data;

•

Travel characteristics collected through the Regional Household Travel Survey;

•

Twenty-four-hour traffic counts at screen-line locations; and

•

Transit ridership counts.

For the 2017 CMP Status Report, the NYBPM was used to estimate the 2017 base year traffic congestion levels, as well as to forecast traffic congestion in the 2045 horizon year. The congestion analysis, described in more detail below, was based on the most recent NYBPM forecasts, which include the programs and projects contained in the fiscally-constrained element of Plan 2045 and the Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 2017–2021 TIP. A post-processor was used to develop CMP performance measures from NYBPM outputs. To calculate traffic volumes, the post-processor uses the AM and PM peak period and two off-peak period assignments along with a 24-hour traffic volume distribution file (by county and function class) to develop hourly volumes for each roadway link in the NYBPM. The post-processor computes speeds on all of the links for each hour of the day based on the 24-hour distribution of volumes.

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, “Data and Model,” www.nymtc.org.

4-1

4.2 Performance Measures As required, NYMTC’s CMP employs performance measures to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the roadway system. These measures are separate and apart from those newly defined under federal Transportation Performance Management requirements. The CMP-related performance measures are described below: •

Demand-to-Capacity (D/C) ratio is a measure that reflects the level of mobility and the quality of travel of a roadway or a section of a roadway. The D/C ratio compares the roadway capacity with the estimated trip demand generated directly from the travel demand models. The capacity of a roadway is defined as the theoretical maximum volume that can be processed by that roadway during a specified time period. The main advantage of using D/C ratio (instead of the conventional vehicle to capacity or V/C ratio) is to allow estimation of congestion explicitly based on travel demand. (Note: Under saturated flow conditions, field counts cannot reflect the actual travel demand and hence do not provide reliable information about the intensity of congestion, whereas the travel model provides a more comprehensive demand estimate.)

•

Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) is the sum total of delay experienced by all vehicles on the network. Delay is defined as the difference between estimated actual travel speed and free flow travel speed, and is therefore a measure that is readily understood by the traveling public.

•

Person Hours of Delay (PHD) is calculated by multiplying VHD by the average vehicle occupancy rate. As vehicle occupancy differs from place to place, the following rates were used: 1.48 for New York City counties, 1.75 for Nassau and Suffolk counties, and 1.44 for Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam counties.

•

Average Travel Speed (ATS) is the calculation for a weighted average of speed. The average speed for each element of the road system is multiplied by the amount of travel on the set of roads. Using the amount of travel as a weighting factor provides an average “system experience” of travelers for each portion of the road system.

•

Lane Miles of Congestion measures the road space that functions at less than free-flow speeds during the peak, and compares actual roadway volume with maximum acceptable volume for the roadway. It reflects the mobility of roadway or section of roadway, indicating the proportion that is congested. Lane Miles of Congestion can easily be aggregated from facility to corridors to sub-regional to region. For purposes of this performance measure, a roadway is defined as congested if the volume is greater than or equal to 85 percent of the Maximum Acceptable Volume (MAV) for that roadway (essentially the Level of Service E volume).

•

Travel Time Index (TTI) is the ratio of peak-period travel time to free-flow travel time. The TTI expresses the average amount of extra time it takes to travel in the peak relative to free flow travel. For example, a TTI of 1.5 for a specific route indicates that if the free-flow time is 30 minutes, the travel time during peak congestion is 45 minutes (30 x1.5 = 45). For this update there are two TTI performance measures calculated. The first is a TTI for all vehicles along all roadways in the network. The second is a TTI specific for freight (truck) vehicles along roadways where trucks are allowed to travel. The truck based TTI is a measure that allows for identification of corridors and bottlenecks specific to freight.

•

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is another performance measure that is developed by the post processor. VMT is the sum of distances traveled by all motor vehicles in a specified region. Travel demand forecasting is used to generate the average trip lengths for a region. The average trip length measure is then used to estimate vehicle miles of travel, which in turn is used in estimating gasoline usage or mobile source emissions of air pollutants. It should be noted that VMT estimated by the travel model was adjusted for consistency with the observed travel in the base year that is reported for the federally mandated Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). For the 2017 CMP analysis base year VMT adjustments were made based on the 2010 version of the NYBPM.

4-2

•

Accessibility indicates the collective performance of land use and transportation systems and determines how well that complex system serves its residents. There may be many ways of improving transportation, including improved mobility, improved land use accessibility (which reduce the distance between destinations), or improved mobility substitutes such as telecommunications or delivery services. This performance measure was evaluated outside the post processor environment.

•

Reliability is the consistency or dependability in travel times for each link, by time period, for one day. Reliability is calculated as the average standard deviation of travel time, on links of each road group (freeways, arterials, and local streets), within a county.

4.3 Data Collection NYMTC’s CMP is built on a large database that includes information describing regional travel patterns, the regional transportation network, and regional socioeconomic/demographic patterns. These data provide the basic information to assess the state of existing and forecast traffic congestion on the regional transportation system. NYMTC and its members collect these data to update, calibrate, and validate the NYBPM, among other purposes. The NYBPM highway and transit networks represent the region’s transportation system and simulate travel conditions. The data required to adequately model the highway and transit networks include the following items: •

Roadway classifications

•

Number of lanes

•

Posted speed limits

•

Parking restrictions

•

Truck usage

•

Subway and commuter rail routes and schedules

•

Bus routes and schedules

•

Ferry routes and schedules

NYMTC collects and maintains a large socioeconomic and demographic database at transportation analysis zone (TAZ) level covering the 28 counties in the NYBPM study area. The data variables summarized by TAZs include: • Total population •

Household population

•

Group quarters population (total, in institutions, homeless/streets, other)

•

Households; average household size and income

•

Employed labor force

•

Employment (total, office, retail)

•

Average earnings per worker

•

K-12 school enrollment

•

University enrollment

4-3

4.4 Congestion Analysis Types of Analyses Three types of analyses were performed to forecast traffic congestion within the NYMTC planning area for the 2017 CMP Status Report: a regional-level analysis, a county-/borough-level analysis, and identification of bottlenecks (congested locations). The regional-level analysis was performed to assess traffic congestion and the performance of the transportation system on a regional scale. The CMP regional analysis allows a means for assessing the effectiveness of planned transportation improvements in addressing future traffic congestion. The county/borough-level analysis is a subset of the regional analysis, focusing on congestion and system performance in each county and facility group in NYMTC’s planning area. The hot spot analysis identifies bottleneck locations and congested areas within each of the ten counties/boroughs in the NYMTC planning area. A bottleneck is defined as a specific location that causes localized, point-source congestion on the regional transportation system. A bottleneck typically occurs due to physical capacity constraints or other characteristics that affect traffic flow, such as traffic control devices and weaving movements. The congested area is defined as an area consisting of a set of congested links in proximity or in sequence. Two criteria were used to identify the congested areas within each county, including: •

Demand-to-Capacity (D/C) ratios (greater than 0.8) as an initial screening process; and

•

Visual inspection of corridors or areas that experience congestion defined by high D/C ratios.

The CMP Post-Processor identifies congested roadway links for each time period described below. It identifies and creates a map of up to ten top congested links for each county. It also reports all congested links with Demand-toCapacity ratios between 0.8 and 1.0 and above 1.0 as this is the Demand-to-Capacity threshold used to select bottleneck locations in each county.

Time Periods For the 2017 CMP Status Report, three time periods (weekday AM peak period, weekday PM peak period, and 24-hour weekday period) and two scenarios (2017 Base Year and 2045 Build) were used for the regional-level and county-level congestion analyses. The weekday AM and PM peak periods were chosen under the assumption that a significant percentage of the recurring delay can be captured by analyzing these two time periods. The AM peak period is the four-hour morning period lasting from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM Congestion in this period is typically of greater intensity and shorter duration than the PM peak period and consists primarily of trips between work and home. The PM peak period is the four-hour evening period lasting from 4:00 to 8:00 PM Congestion in this period is typically of longer duration and lesser intensity than the AM peak period. Trip-making characteristics also are different; while some trips are the reverse of the AM peak period trips (such as work-to-home trips); a significant number of trips are from work to other locations, or from home to other destinations such as retail or recreational. These characteristics are captured by the activity-based structure of the NYBPM. The peak periods have been selected for analysis instead of the peak hour to account for both the intensity and duration of traffic congestion in the NYMTC planning area. Therefore, only those segments that experience an average demand-to-capacity ratio of 0.8 or greater during the entire AM or PM peak period were identified as a

4-4

congested link for CMP purposes. The weekday period is the entire 24-hour period. This time period is included as it captures the entire trip-making activity of the population on a typical weekday for all purposes. Although congestion is generally not perceived as occurring on a daily level, a 24-hour study period provides an estimate for the range of congestion throughout the entire day.

Analysis Years In this CMP Status report congestion analysis has been done for the 2017 Base year and the 2045 Forecast Year (RTP forecast year). The 2017 Base Year scenario reflects current congestion in the NYMTC planning area. The RTP’s 2045 Forecast Year is considered the Build Scenario as it includes all transportation improvements NYMTC has made a commitment to by programming them in the 2017-2021 TIP or including them in the fiscally constrained element of the Plan 2045. These are employed for forecasts of future traffic congestion.

Identification of Congested Corridors – Methodology The hot spot analysis identifies problem areas with high congestion levels for the entire NYMTC planning area based on high demand-to-capacity ratios. When evaluated at the county level, the process helps to isolate local congestion problems. This effort directly supports the selection and prioritization of potential congestion mitigation projects. Specific areas of congestion – bottlenecks – are currently reported by the CMP Post Processor and based on demand-to-capacity ratio for each transportation network segment for all four time periods, as well as a daily statistic. The 10 top locations within the highest demand-to-capacity ratio are selected in each county. To identify congested corridors, congested links identified by the post processor in each county were further evaluated with Congestion Ranks that include the following scoring components and weights: •

Importance – Functional class of the roadway (15 percent);

•

Magnitude – Daily one-way traffic on the link (45 percent);

•

Intensity – Level of congestion that is based on demand-to-capacity ratio (25 percent); and

•

Consistency – length of the corridor of consecutive congested links on the transportation network (15 percent).

By design, Magnitude or Volume is considered to be a high priority in assessing congested corridors. High daily volume is usually an indicator of a corridor where congestion is present. Second highest is the Intensity or demand-to-capacity ratio. The highest hourly D/C ratio represents how “intense” congestion is in the peak-of-the-peak. Intensity is important as it represents the highest deviation from “normal” traffic conditions. Higher functional class roads (i.e., freeways) are more important in the regional travel system than arterials and local roads. Importance gives the higher weights to more regional roads. The length of a congested corridor or Consistency has a bearing on the how much of the network is impacted by the congestion of a particular road. Examples of other possible link scoring components could include severity, based on link average speed estimated by the post processor.

4-5

5 REGIONAL ANALYSIS This section discusses the level of congestion forecast for the entire NYMTC planning area in 2017 and 2045. Congestion levels in the New York metropolitan region are first benchmarked against congestion in other peer regions. Section 5.2 discusses performance measures derived from the forecasts. Section 5.3 presents the top congested corridors in New York City, suburban Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley.

5.1 Comparisons of Congestion The NYMTC planning area is second only to the greater Los Angeles region (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana) in terms of total population, but far exceeds the population density of any other metropolitan region in the country. Among the large peer regions shown in Table 5.1 - Comparison of Daily VMT per Capita and Travel Time Index, the NYMTC planning area has the fourth lowest daily VMT per capita due mainly to high population density and high proportion of transit use.

Table 5.1 - Comparison of Daily VMT per Capita and Travel Time Index Population (million)

Daily VMT/Capita (Freeway + Arterial)

Travel Time Index

4.50

21.56

1.24

Dallas Fort Worth

5.49

19.35

1.27

Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim

12.64

19.05

1.43

Houston

5.00

18.18

1.33

Boston

4.44

17.39

1.29

Washington D.C.

4.92

17.18

1.34

Seattle

3.33

16.76

1.38

Chicago

8.70

15.39

1.31

San Francisco, Oakland

3.48

15.01

1.41

Philadelphia

5.56

14.77

1.24

NYMTC planning area (from 2017 CMP estimates)

12.44

13.03

1.21

Metropolitan Area Atlanta

Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard (all regions except NYMTC).

NYMTC’s peer regions evaluate mobility and congestion performance measures as part of their federally-required CMPs; however, comparative performance measurement across regions is difficult given the many different measures and methodologies used to evaluate congestion. Data from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute’s 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard Report—the latest available as of this writing—which assesses congestion in 101 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) across the country was reviewed to provide a comparison of congestion estimated in the NYMTC planning area through the CMP. The Report provides estimates of travel, several metrics of overall congestion, plus specific analyses of the impacts of system operations and public transportation on congestion. For the purposes of this analysis, we compared the NYMTC planning area to other metropolitan areas in the ‘very large’ category, which includes MSAs with over 3 million residents. In 2014, there were 11 MSAs with over 3 million residents.

5-1

Travel Estimates In terms of total travel, only Los Angeles metro area exceeds the volume of travel experienced in New York and no other metro area comes close. Figure 5.1 presents the travel on freeways, and arterials for the average of the very large areas and the top 5 travel markets.

Figure 5.1 - Travel Volumes in New York and Comparable Metro Areas 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 -

Freeway VMT (1,000s) Very Large Area Average

New York (MSA)

Arterial VMT (1,000s) Los Angeles

Chicago

Miami

Philadelphia

Note: Very Large Area refers to a metropolitan statistical area with over three million residents.

System Congestion Figure 5.2 shows three indicators of total congestion for the 15 very large metropolitan areas: •

The percentage of travel that is in congested conditions (x-axis)

•

The percentage of the system that is congested (y-axis)

•

Total delay (bubbles are sized based on total delay)

The New York MSA is shown in red and the average of all 15 areas is shown in orange. By percentage of travel or system, New York is not the most congested MSA. However, because of the amount of travel, New York travelers experience the most aggregate delay (over 600 million hours per year), with only travelers in Los Angeles experiencing anything close to the level of delay.

5-2

Figure 5.2 - Measures of Systemwide Congestion Percentage of System Congested (% of lane miles)

60 55 50

Washington D.C.

Phoenix

Seattle

Average

San Francisco, Oakland

San Diego

Philadelphia

New York-Newark (NY/NJ/CT)

30 25

Miami Dallas Fort Worth

Atlanta

Detroit

15 10

Los Angeles, Longâ&#x20AC;Ś

Chicago

Houston

Boston

Percentage of Travel Congested (% of Peak VMT) Note: Bubbles are sized to total delay. New York is shown in red and the average of all 15 areas is shown in orange.

On a per-capita basis, travelers in the New York metropolitan region experience the fourth highest level of travel time delay per year according to the 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard Report data, with Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and San Francisco metropolitan areas exceeding New York levels (Figure 5.3). The extensive public transportation system in the New York metropolitan region is illustrated by the comparison of travel time index (TTI) and planning time index (PTI) (Figure 5.4), where TTI is the ratio of travel time in the peak period to travel time at free-flow conditions. A TTI of 1.30 indicates a 20-minute free-flow trip takes 26 minutes in the peak period. The PTI is the ratio of travel time on the worst day of the month to travel time at free-flow conditions. A PTI of 1.80 indicates a traveler should plan for 36 minutes for a trip that takes 20 minutes in free-flow conditions (20 minutes x 1.80 = 36 minutes). The PTI is computed for freeways only; it does not include arterial roadways. When a PTI is followed by a number, the number indicates a percentage of on-time arrival.

5-3

Figure 5.3 - Per Capita Annual Hours of Delay Washington D.C. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim San Francisco Bay Area New York-Newark (NY/NJ/CT) Boston Seattle Houston Chicago Bay Area Very Large Area Average Dallas Fort Worth Miami Detroit Atlanta Phoenix Bay Area Philadelphia San Diego -

30 40 50 60 70 Annual Hours of Delay per Commuter

Ratio of Travel Time in Peak Period to Travel Time at Free-Flow Conditions

Figure 5.4 - Comparison of Travel Time Indices across U.S. Cities 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

TTI

PTI95

Note: TTI is the ratio of travel time in the peak period to travel time at free-flow conditions. PTI is the ratio of travel time on the worst day of the month to travel time at free-flow conditions; PTI95 translates to the additional time required to ensure an on-time arrival 95 percent.

5-4

5.2 Performance Measures Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 provide regional performance measures in the NYMTC planning area, by county, for the years 2017 and 2045. Table 5.4 provides a percentage difference between the two. The first two tables provide estimates by county and time period for the following measures: •

Lane miles of congestion (LMC)

•

The travel time index (TTI) for all vehicles and trucks

•

Daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

•

Vehicle hours of delay (VHD)

•

Person hours of delay (PHD)

•

Vehicle hours of delay per one thousand miles traveled

•

Daily person hours of delay per capita

Lane miles of congestion appear to be consistently higher in the AM peak compared to the PM peak, across counties. TTI estimates reflect the same pattern. According to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute 2011 Congested Corridors Report, in the case of Very Large urban areas (greater than three million residents), the minimum TTI value for a portion of an hour to be considered congested is 1.12. Queens has amongst the highest vehicle and highway person hours of delay, followed by Manhattan and Brooklyn. Queens’ high estimate for LMC is likely due to several very congested roadways that pass through the borough, including the Long Island Expressway, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and the Grand Central Parkway. However, the suburban Long Island counties exhibit the highest levels of VMT. Across all counties, total VHD per one thousand miles traveled increases significantly by 30% between 2017 and 2045. Rockland County, however, is forecast to grow by 172% between 2017 and 2045, a result of the large growth compared to the relatively small base of VHD. Figure 5.5, Figure 5.6, and Figure 5.7 represent modeled VHD, PHD, and VMT, at a county level, for years 2017 and 2045.

5-5

Table 5.2 - 2017 Regional Performance Measures LMC Facility Type

TTI (Weighted by VMT)

VHD

VMT

PHD

VHD per Lane Miles

PHD per Capita

VMT per Capita

Daily

New York City Boroughs Bronx

371

1.67

1.05

179,721

8,859,310

265,986

10.55

0.19

6.41

Brooklyn

725

280

1.85

1.23

386,044

12,397,123

571,345

13.40

0.22

4.79

Manhattan Queens Staten Island

368

341

1.71

1.31

389,309

8,804,885

576,176

25.65

0.37

5.66

1,256

254

2.14

1.20

799,586

19,658,724

1,183,387

23.13

0.52

8.63

1.22

1.03

66,842

5,694,789

98,927

6.92

0.21

12.01

Suburban Counties Nassau

371

1.67

1.05

179,721

8,859,310

265,986

4.61

0.20

6.65

Suffolk

227

262

1.07

1.05

293,417

40,983,205

513,480

4.42

0.35

27.78

1.03

1.00

3,288

3,484,730

4,734

0.35

0.05

35.71

1.08

1.01

23,964

8,275,831

34,507

1.86

0.11

26.07

164

1.05

1.00

114,323

24,679,612

164,625

2.94

0.17

26.12

3,658

1,433

1.33

1.08

2,612,397

162,070,083

4,036,002

9.61

0.32

13.03

Putnam Rockland Westchester Region NYMTC Planning Area

D/C = Demand to Capacity; LMC = Lane Miles of Congestion; TTI = Travel Time Index; ATS = Average Travel Speed; VHD = Vehicle Hours of Delay; PHD = Person Hours of Delay; VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled Note: D/C = average Demand to Capacity for the particular facility type and period. The “0.8<=DC<=1” and “D/C>1” are the percent of travel that occurs in various conditions (somewhat congested and very congested).

5-6

Table 5.3 - 2045 Regional Performance Measures LMC Facility Type

TTI (Weighted by VMT)

VHD

VMT

PHD

VHD per Lane Miles

PHD per Capita

VMT per Capita

Daily

New York City Boroughs Bronx

439

1.78

1.09

233,698

9,664,710

345,873

13.73

0.22

6.22

Brooklyn

823

329

1.95

1.27

472,345

13,244,902

699,072

16.28

0.25

4.67

Manhattan Queens Staten Island

407

415

1.77

1.40

457,656

9,368,120

677,331

30.04

0.42

5.75

1,400

311

2.30

1.28

965,629

21,083,998

1,429,132

27.74

0.60

8.79

143

1.28

1.08

97,342

6,170,281

144,066

10.05

0.29

12.47

Suburban Counties Nassau

439

1.78

1.09

233,698

9,664,710

345,873

6.00

0.22

6.23

Suffolk

286

372

1.11

1.08

482,490

46,643,765

844,358

7.22

0.51

28.18

Putnam

1.04

1.00

4,808

3,935,760

6,925

0.51

0.06

36.91

Rockland

136

1.15

1.02

46,716

10,180,661

67,271

3.61

0.18

26.54

Westchester

278

117

1.08

1.00

183,043

28,207,146

263,582

4.71

0.24

25.39

4,436

1,862

1.39

1.11

3,482,588

181,277,599

5,420,613

12.76

0.40

13.22

Region NYMTC Planning Area

5-7

Table 5.4 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 LMC Facility Type

TTI (Weighted by VMT)

VHD

VMT

PHD

VHD per Lane Miles

PHD per Capita

VMT per Capita

Daily

New York City Boroughs Bronx

18.1%

49.2%

7.1%

3.5%

30.0%

9.1%

30.0%

30.2%

15.7%

-3.0%

Brooklyn

13.5%

17.6%

5.5%

3.2%

22.4%

6.8%

22.4%

21.5%

11.6%

-2.6%

Manhattan

10.4%

21.6%

3.5%

6.5%

17.6%

6.4%

17.6%

17.2%

12.2%

1.6%

Queens

11.5%

22.5%

7.6%

6.1%

20.8%

7.3%

20.8%

19.9%

14.7%

1.9%

Staten Island

49.7%

59.4%

4.8%

4.6%

45.6%

8.3%

45.6%

45.3%

39.6%

3.8%

Nassau

18.1%

49.2%

7.1%

3.5%

30.0%

9.1%

30.0%

30.1%

11.6%

-6.4%

Suffolk

26.2%

41.7%

3.8%

3.0%

64.4%

13.8%

64.4%

63.2%

46.6%

1.5%

Putnam

119.7%

100.0%

0.8%

0.4%

46.2%

12.9%

46.3%

46.2%

33.9%

3.4%

Rockland

86.9%

147.4%

6.2%

1.5%

94.9%

23.0%

94.9%

94.2%

61.3%

1.8%

Westchester

69.1%

52.9%

3.1%

0.6%

60.1%

14.3%

60.1%

36.1%

-2.8%

21.3%

30.0%

5.1%

3.0%

33.3%

11.9%

34.3%

32.8%

21.8%

1.4%

Suburban Counties

Region NYMTC Planning Area

5-8

Figure 5.5 - NYMTC Planning Area Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay by County

Figure 5.6 - NYMTC Planning Area Daily Person Hours of Delay by County

5-9

Figure 5.7 - NYMTC Planning Area Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled by County

Reliability Increasingly, transportation agencies are looking to travel time reliability as a measure to capture system performance. Travel time reliability typically refers to the variability of travel times that travelers experience from one day, season, or year to the next. The focus on reliability comes from the recognition that congestion is a function of several root causes, including crashes and other incidents, special events, weather, and normal fluctuations in demand in addition to limited capacity. A variety of performance measures have been developed to measure reliability, but all of them draw from the distribution of travel times on a given segment, corridor, or system. Common reliability measures in use today include: 7 â&#x20AC;˘

The PTI and other variants of the TTI. These measures capture the multiple of free flow time (travel time under uncongested conditions) required to complete a given percentage of trips â&#x20AC;&#x153;on time.â&#x20AC;? The PTI typically considers the 95th percentile of travel time (i.e., a PTI of 3 means that a traveler must allow for a trip that is three times as long as free flow time to be on time 95 percent of the time). The PTI is a special instance of the TTI measure, which typically considers the relationship between average travel time and free flow time. The 95th percentile can be thought of as one day a month. Several agencies also consider the 80th percentile, which might be thought of as the travel time that a system user may expect once a week.

The SHRP 2 Reliability program has developed several measures of reliability through a range of projects. SHRP 2 L03, Analytical Procedures for Determining the Impacts of Reliability Mitigation Strategies, has the most current published version and can be found at: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166935.aspx.

5-10

•

The semi variance is a one-sided variance that looks at the relative variation of the entire travel time distribution (i.e., the sum of the difference of each observed travel time from free flow, calculated only in one direction). 8

•

The buffer index is similar to the planning time index, except that it compares the 95th percentile of travel time to average travel time.

•

Failure measures capture the percent of trips that occur on a segment or corridors above some threshold (e.g., 2.5 times free flow speed).

For the purposes of this particular report the reliability measure reported is TTI; however, this can be changed in the future based on the requirements of the final rules on Systems and Performances that address performance measures for traffic congestion. As one of the largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., the NYMTC region experiences significant unreliability on its road network. The Texas A&M Transportation Institute Congested Corridors Report 2011 identified 28 congested highway corridors in the NYMTC region. The data are drawn from continuous travel time data that, to date, has been most effectively collected on limited access facilities. This analysis does not address the reliability of the arterial network, which is of equal concern. Figure 5.8 presents reliability performance measures drawn from the Texas Transportation Institute’s Congested Corridors Report, 2011 (latest available) for the corridors in the NYMTC region. Three measures are shown: •

TTI – the ratio of average travel time to free flow travel time

•

TTI80 – the ratio of the 80th percentile of travel time (the 80th worst travel time) to free flow time – this measure captures how unreliable travel is on a corridor roughly once a week

•

TTI95 – the ratio of the 95th percentile of travel time to free flow time – this measure captures how unreliable travel is on a corridor roughly once per month.

Nearly all of the corridors identified in this analysis face unreliable conditions. Even average travel times on these corridors takes twice as long as free flow. Put another way, travel on these corridors occurs at best at half the posted speed. At least one day a week (TTI80), travel times on many of these facilities are 3.5 to 4 times longer than free flow or twice as bad as average conditions. Notable exceptions include the Belt Parkway (which has substantially more reliable conditions than the other corridors (while still generally unreliable), I-95 and Harlem River Drive (both of which have a TTI80 value of close to 6.0), and the Van Wyck, which experiences severe congestion (TTI80 of over 8 in the Northbound direction, meaning that it takes 8 times as long as free flow time to traverse this corridor roughly once a week).

The semi-variance measure was developed by SHRP 2 L02, Establishing Monitoring Programs for Travel Time Reliability, http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/168765.aspx.

5-11

Figure 5.8 - Reliability on Select Highway Corridors in the NYMTC Region Van Wyck Expy/I-678 SB NB Southern State Pkwy WB EB Northern State Pkwy WB Major Deegan Expy/I-87 NB SB Long Island Expy/I-495 WB (Nassau-Queens) EB Long Island Expy EB (Suffolk) I-95 SB (NE Thwy, Bruckner/Cross Bronx Expys) NB I-278 WB (Brooklyn Queens/Gowanus Expy) EB Hutchinson River Pkwy NB Henry Hudson Pkwy NB Harlem River Dr NB Grand Central Pkwy WB EB Goethals Brg EB|I-278 EB FDR Dr NB Cross Island Pkwy SB NB Bronx Whitestone Brg NB|Whitestone Expy NB Laurelton/Belt/Shore Pkwys WB EB Belt Pkwy WB EB

TTI TTI80 TTI95

2 4 6 8 10 Ratio of Travel Time in Peak Period to Travel Time at Free-Flow Conditions

Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute Congested Corridors Report, 2011. http://mobility.tamu.edu/corridors/. Note: The indices shown are not additive, but layered one on top of the other for each corridor, illustrating the relative difference amongst the three travel time indices- TTI, TT80 and TTI95. TTI – the ratio of average travel time to free flow travel time TTI80 – the ratio of the 80th percentile of travel time (the 80th worst travel time) to free flow time TTI95 – the ratio of the 95th percentile of travel time to free flow time

5-12

Accessibility Accessibility (or â&#x20AC;&#x153;accessâ&#x20AC;?) refers to the ease of reaching goods, services, activities and destinations, which together are called opportunities. It can be defined as the potential for interaction and exchange (Hansen 1959; Engwicht 1993). Accessibility can be thought of as having two components: attractiveness and impedance. The attractiveness component is usually measured as the number of opportunities at destinations. For example, when measuring accessibility to jobs, the attraction value can be the number of jobs at the various potential destinations, while for shopping centers this can be the number of shops in the center. The impedance function decreases the probability of being attracted to such destinations based on distance or travel time. 9 There is no single method to evaluate accessibility. For example, accessibility can be measured by the travel times between two points, the availability of jobs within a certain travel time, the availability of transit options, and so on. Figure 5.9 and Figure 5.10 illustrate one common measure of accessibilityâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the availability of jobs within 45 minutes of travel time (at congested speeds) in 2017 and 2045, respectively. The region represented by dark red represents TAZs with access to over 4 million jobs within 45 minutes. The blues and greens represent the other end of the spectrum with access to considerably fewer jobs. In 2045, more of the TAZs turn from green to blue and red to yellows, indicating fewer jobs within 45 minutes. This is a sign of an increasingly congested transportation system; however, the difference does not appear to be dramatic. One reason for this could be that the 2045 alternative contains committed projects planned to alleviate current traffic congestion. One region that will likely see an accessibility improvement in the future (as measured by access to jobs) is part of suburban Long Island and Queens, partially attributable to the presence of the MTA Long Island Rail Road East Side Access project, linking Long Island and Queens to Grand Central Terminal.

Access to Destinations: Development of Accessibility Measures, Ahmed M. El-Geneidy, David M. Levinson, University of Minnesota.

5-13

Figure 5.9 - 2017 Jobs Accessible Within a 45 Minute Drive during a Morning Peak Commute

5-14

Figure 5.10 - 2045 Jobs Accessible Within a 45 Minute Drive during a Morning Peak Commute

5-15

Freight Performance Measures In 2012, 365 million tons of freight moved into, out of, within, or through the ten-county NYMTC region. Table 5.5 below presents the freight flows by weight and direction in 2012 and 2045, in addition to the proportion of regional freight by direction. Approximately 174 million tons (48 percent) traveled inbound, 65 million tons (18 percent) traveled outbound, and 50 million tons (14 percent) was intraregional, having traveled from one point within the NYMTC region to another point within the NYMTC region. Through freight accounted for 76 million tons or 21 percent of the total.

Table 5.5 - Commodity Flow by Direction for NYMTC Planning Area All Modes, 2012 and 2045 2012

2045

Tons (in millions)

% of Total

Tons (in millions)

% of Total

Total Growth (2012-2045)

Inbound

174.4

47.7%

274.1

44.9%

57.2%

Outbound

74.2

20.3%

126.0

20.7%

69.8%

Through NYMTC

76.1

20.8%

126.3

20.7%

66.0%

Intra-NYMTC

40.7

11.1%

83.4

13.7%

104.9%

TOTAL

365.3

100.0%

609.7

100.0%

66.9%

Direction of Movement

Source: 2012 IHS Global Insight Transearch Data, 2012 Surface Transportation Board (STB) Waybill Sample

By 2045 these flows are expected to grow by 67 percent, amounting to 610 million tons. Inbound flows are expected to grow 57 percent to 274 million tons, at an annual growth rate of 1.4 percent. Outbound shipments are expected to increase by 70 percent to 126 million tons, at an annual growth rate of 1.6 percent. Intra-NYMTC freight is estimated to increase nearly 105 percent to 83 million tons, at an annual growth rate of 2.2 percent, and through freight is expected to increase to 126.3 million tons by 2040, a 66 percent increase, and 1.6 percent compound annual growth rate. As shown in Table 5.6, trucks were the dominant mode of freight transportation throughout the region. The NYMTC planning area is highly dependent on trucks for the movement of the vast majority of its freight. Approximately 89 percent of all freight tonnage in 2012 was moved by truck in all directions. Rail was the second most common mode, transporting nearly 7 percent of freight tonnage in the same year, the vast majority of which was passing through the region. Freight transport by water comprised approximately 5 percent of freight tonnage. Air and other modes of transportation each accounted for less than 1 percent of flow. These modes are not expected to change substantially between 2012 and 2045.

5-17

Table 5.6 - Commodity Flow by Mode for NYMTC Planning Area All Modes, 2012 and 2045 2012

2045

Tons (in millions)

% of Total

Tons (in millions)

% of Total

Total Growth (2012-2045)

Rail

24.3

6.6%

41.7

6.8%

71.7%

Truck

321.8

88.1%

536.9

88.1%

66.8%

Direction of Movement

Air

0.2

0.1%

0.3

0.1%

66.2%

Water

19.1

5.2%

30.8

5.1%

61.8%

Other

<0.1

<0.1%

<0.1

<0.1%

445.6%

TOTAL

365.3

100.0%

609.7

100.0%

66.9%

Source: 2012 IHS Global Insight Transearch Data, 2012 Surface Transportation Board (STB) Waybill Sample

5.3 Critically Congested Roadway Corridors in 2045 Figure 5.11, Figure 5.12, and Figure 5.13 present the top congested corridors in the three subareas of NYMTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planning area based on the most significantly congested corridors. The methodology adopted to identify these corridors is described in Section 4 based on four factors: importance, magnitude, intensity, and consistency. Appendix C, Congested Corridor Screening Worksheet, illustrates how the most congested regional corridors were identified.

Figure 5.11 - Top Congested Corridors New York City

5-18

Figure 5.12 - Top Congested Corridors Long Island

Figure 5.13 - Top Congested Corridors Lower Hudson Valley

5-19

6 COUNTY/BOROUGH CONGESTION ANALYSIS This section provides a county-level summary of congestion estimates for the 2017 Base Year and the 2045 Build Scenario. As discussed in the Methodology section, the 2045 Build Scenario includes all transportation improvements NYMTC has programmed in the TIP and the fiscally constrained element of Plan 2045. For each of the ten counties (five boroughs of New York City and five suburban counties) in the NYMTC planning area, an overview is provided, including background information and travel characteristics for the 2017 Base Year and 2045 Build Scenario. Background information includes population (2017 Base Year, 2045 Build Scenario, and percent change), major portals and roadways. The travel characteristics are derived from the NYBPM and include: •

Vehicular Travel – vehicle miles of travel for the 2017 Base Year and 2045 Build Scenario and the percent change.

•

Traffic Congestion – vehicle hours of delay for the 2017 Base Year and 2045 Build Scenario, and the percent change.

•

Origins and Destinations – forecasted intercounty (two-directional) vehicular daily trips for the year 2045 based on the NYBPM.

•

Performance Measures – the tables summarize the performance measures, as described in the Analysis Methodology section, disaggregated by functional class. The first table in each section presents performance measure data for the 2017 Base Year in the AM peak, PM peak, and daily periods. The next table presents performance measure data for the 2045 Build Scenario for the same time periods and the third table presents the percentage difference between the two.

•

Congestion Patterns and Bottlenecks – these maps identify congested corridors and bottlenecks for the 2045 Build Scenario. As further described in the Analysis Methodology section, using output data from the NYBPM, demand-to-capacity ratio congestion levels are represented for individual links in the roadway system. To account for the levels of area-wide congestion, other factors such as length of the congested segment, traffic volume and importance of the roadway were used to identify congested corridors. Congested corridors are shown for the 2045 Build Scenario AM and PM peak periods. Also shown are potential bottleneck locations. Roadway links that experience a D/C ratio greater than 1.0 for a four-hour peak period are shown in red, while those with a ratio between 1.0 and 0.8 are shown in blue. Only roadway links that experience a D/C ratio of 0.8 or greater are identified as congested. Using the NYBPM- derived measures of congestion, together with our familiarity with the NYMTC regional highway network, and data from the 2011 Texas A&M Transportation Institute Congested Corridors Report, a list of approximately 50 roadway sections were used to develop the top regional congestion bottlenecks. These roadway sections are listed and discussed below (and in Appendix B) by county/borough. (Please note that the order is arbitrary and does not imply a ranking.)

6-1

6.1 Bronx

6-2

Figure 6.1 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Bronx

Population 2017

VHD Daily Totals 2,585,485

12.4% change

2,834,712

2045

2017

8,859,310

3,000,000

9.1% change

VMT

2017

472,346

2045

VMT Daily Totals

9,664,710

Bronx 24-Hour VMT

2,000,000 1,000,000 0

2045

30.0% change

386,044

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour of Day 2017

2045

Figure 6.2 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Bronx and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area

Note: The two-way daily trip tabulations include transit and all classes of highway trips (auto + truck)

6-3

Table 6.1 - 2017 Performance Measures, Bronx Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.58

14%

330.2

2.03

2.37

13.90

72,019

106,588

1,379,130

Arterial

0.20

36.8

1.05

0.86

15.50

6,882

10,185

489,177

Local

0.14

4.3

1.03

0.76

13.90

3,712

5,494

315,094

Freeway

0.15

21.9

1.08

1.20

43.50

3,048

4,510

879,836

Arterial

0.04

0.2

1.00

0.88

19.80

560

830

254,301

Local

0.03

1.9

1.00

0.77

15.80

605

896

179,542

Freeway

0.39

1,012.1

1.45

2.17

21.60

146,856

217,346

5,480,880

Arterial

0.14

107.1

1.03

0.86

16.80

21,222

31,409

2,055,065

Local

0.10

15.3

1.02

0.76

14.50

11,643

17,231

1,323,365

179,721

265,986

8,859,310

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Table 6.2 - 2045 Performance Measures, Bronx Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.60

17%

388.0

2.22

2.32

12.60

88,911

131,589

1,489,570

Arterial

0.23

46.0

1.07

0.85

15.10

8,793

13,014

550,733

Local

0.16

4.6

1.03

0.75

13.70

3,714

5,496

339,109

Freeway

0.16

33.0

1.13

1.38

39.70

5,506

8,149

968,228

Arterial

0.05

1.2

1.01

0.87

19.90

714

1,057

274,549

Local

0.03

1.6

1.00

0.76

15.60

502

743

184,205

Freeway

0.41

1,273.8

1.58

2.21

19.20

194,589

287,992

5,961,021

Arterial

0.16

139.3

1.04

0.85

16.40

27,545

40,766

2,292,870

Local

0.11

13.0

1.02

0.76

14.30

11,564

17,115

1,410,819

233,698

345,873

9,664,710

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

D/C = average Demand to Capacity for the particular facility type and period. The “0.8<=DC<=1” and “D/C>1” are the percent of travel that occurs in various conditions (somewhat congested and very congested).

6-4

Table 6.3 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Bronx Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

-11%

21%

Arterial

15%

100%

Local

14%

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

18%

-2%

-9%

23%

25%

-1%

-3%

28%

13%

-1%

51%

15%

-9%

81%

10%

25%

500%

-1%

28%

27%

-16%

-1%

-17%

17%

29%

26%

11%

33%

Arterial

14%

30%

-1%

-2%

30%

12%

Local

10%

-15%

-1%

30%

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

PM Period (4PM – 8PM) Freeway Arterial Local Daily Total Freeway

Total

Bronx – Congested Corridors I-95/Cross Bronx Expressway/New England Thruway from Harlem River/Alexander Hamilton Bridge to Westchester County Line – This is the “heart” of the 7th highest-ranked corridor in the United States for Congestion Cost in the TTI Report. Congestion is most significant in the westbound/southbound direction during both peaks due to sheer volume heading toward Manhattan and Queens in the AM and trucks headed toward the George Washington Bridge (GWB) in the PM by trucks entering from I-87/Major Deegan Expressway to immediately weave to the left side for the Upper Level of the GWB. Congestion is greatest between the Alexander Hamilton Bridge and the Bruckner interchange, where some of the most highly congested segments in the entire country have been identified. In addition, there are various choke points in both directions of this highway at various times due to heavy merges and weaves and steep grades. The heavy usage of this road by trucks makes its congestion especially detrimental to the region’s economy in terms of time loss, fuel consumption and cost of maintenance due to higher roadway damage caused by the weight of trucks. Henry Hudson Parkway from Riverdale Avenue to the Henry Hudson Bridge – This is a primary roadway linking western portions of the Bronx with upper Manhattan. While traffic congestion along the Henry Hudson Parkway is not as severe in the Bronx as in Manhattan, there is a significant southbound backup occurring during the morning peak that stretches from the Henry Hudson Bridge to Riverdale Avenue. While cash tolling has been replaced by electronic tolling, this may do little to stem the southbound morning congestion that easily reaches the tolls and beyond. Webster Avenue from Claremont Parkway to Bronx River Parkway via Mosholu Parkway and Southern Boulevard – This major arterial roadway provides access to major retailers, commuter train stations, major parks, Fordham University, and many other establishments within central Bronx. The roadway becomes very congested during the evening peak, especially near Fordham University, near the Cross Bronx Expressway, and along Southern Boulevard adjacent to the Bronx River Parkway. Although these are the evening hotspots, the entire length of the corridor experiences significant delays during the evening peak. Morning congestion is concentrated primarily between Fordham University and the Cross Bronx Expressway.

6-5

I-278/Bruckner Expressway/I-295 Cross Bronx Expressway from the RFK Bridge to Throgs Neck Bridge – This is a major commuter route between Manhattan and Queens to the south and the Bronx/Westchester/Connecticut to the north. It has several choke points due to heavy merging and weaving at various times, as well as substandard design in sections, including a sharp curve on a section with no shoulders at the I-895/Sheridan Expressway interchange, and the interchange with I-87/Major Deegan Expressway. It also carries high truck volumes as it provides access to/from the Hunts Point Market complex. Congestion occurs mostly away from Manhattan and Queens (north) during the evening peak and towards Manhattan and Queens (south) during the morning peak, although it is not uncommon for the Throgs Neck Bridge to be congested in either direction during either peak. The most congested portion of this segment is centered between the I-895 and I-87 interchanges, as well as the approach to and from the Throgs Neck Bridge. I-87/Major Deegan Expressway from I-278/Bruckner Expressway to Westchester County Line – In the northbound direction, this is the 32nd highest-ranked corridor in the United States in terms of delay per mile in the TTI Report. It is one of the three main approaches from Manhattan to the GWB. The main problem is the ramp to southbound I-95 (GWB approach), which backs up onto the I-87 mainline every evening. The backup is exacerbated by the large volume of trucks on the ramp. Congestion occurs on southbound I-87 throughout the entire corridor during the morning peak, especially on the approach to the I-95 interchange, and the approach to I-278/Bruckner Expressway. This highway section also abuts Yankee Stadium, which produces heavy congestion in both directions, particularly approaching the Stadium for weeknight Yankee home games (roughly 55 per year, plus postseason games). Due to short on and off ramps along this route that result in spillovers, congestion during peaks continues north towards Westchester County on a routine basis. Bronx River Parkway from I-95/Cross Bronx Expressway to the Southern Boulevard Interchange – Problems occur at entry and exit points, particularly at I-95, where direct ramp connections are not provided and traffic must mix with local traffic on the service roads. Congestion occurs mostly southbound in the evening peak and northbound in the morning peak. Hutchinson River Parkway/I-678 from Interchange 5/City Island to the Whitestone Bridge – While this is a less congested alternative to I-95 in the eastern Bronx, it is still a significantly congested roadway. The route connects the Bronx/Westchester/Connecticut with Queens via the Whitestone Bridge. The worst congestion occurs during the morning peak as backups occur along southbound I-678 into Queens and result in congestion within the Bronx. Fordham Road from Valentine Ave to White Plains Rd – This major arterial roadway is packed with retail establishments, parks, Fordham University, subway and commuter rail stops, and dense residences. The segment between Valentine Ave and White Plains Road is especially congested, primarily due to the volume exiting the Bronx River Parkway and the high concentration of driveways and traffic lights in the area.

6-6

Figure 6.3 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Bronx

6-7

Figure 6.4 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Bronx

6-8

6.2 Brooklyn

6-9

Figure 6.5 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Brooklyn

Population 2017

VHD Daily Totals 2,585,485

9.6% change

2,834,712

2045

2017

12,397,123

Brooklyn 24-Hour VMT

3,000,000

6.8% change

VMT

2017

472,346

2045

VMT Daily Totals

2,000,000 1,000,000 0

2045

13,244,902

22.4% change

386,044

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour of Day 2017

2045

Figure 6.6 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Brooklyn and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area

Note: The two-way daily trip tabulations include transit and all classes of highway trips (auto + truck)

6-10

Table 6.4 - 2017 Performance Measures, Brooklyn Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.69

27%

376.4

2.74

1.74

11.10

89,279

132,133

1,268,995

Arterial

0.37

337.4

1.17

0.83

12.20

28,863

42,717

1,036,988

Local

0.34

11.1

1.13

0.69

10.20

12,250

18,129

594,031

Freeway

0.23

159.5

1.43

1.62

16.20

42,480

62,870

1,008,848

Arterial

0.10

120.1

1.03

0.83

14.30

12,832

18,991

707,668

Local

0.07

0.3

1.01

0.65

12.10

1,611

2,384

250,260

Freeway

0.50

10%

15%

1,431.5

1.94

1.67

15.60

240,261

355,586

5,406,054

Arterial

0.28

1,266.6

1.12

0.82

13.10

110,992

164,268

4,725,109

Local

0.22

21.9

1.07

0.67

10.80

34,791

51,491

2,265,960

386,044

571,345

12,397,123

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Table 6.5 - 2045 Performance Measures, Brooklyn Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.72

28%

392.9

2.95

1.73

10.10

106,762

158,007

1,346,871

Arterial

0.41

416.0

1.20

0.85

11.50

34,927

51,692

1,103,078

Local

0.37

14.2

1.15

0.71

9.80

15,284

22,620

645,703

Freeway

0.24

184.0

1.50

1.61

15.20

50,107

74,159

1,083,217

Arterial

0.11

144.2

1.04

0.83

13.60

15,742

23,299

744,277

Local

0.07

1.1

1.01

0.65

11.90

2,230

3,301

281,231

Freeway

0.52

16%

1,602.4

2.07

1.68

14.20

291,431

431,318

5,744,318

Arterial

0.31

1,591.8

1.14

0.83

12.30

136,302

201,728

5,002,781

Local

0.25

30.4

1.08

0.68

10.50

44,612

66,026

2,497,803

472,345

699,072

13,244,902

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

6-11

Table 6.6 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Brooklyn Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

11%

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

-1%

-9%

20%

33%

23%

-6%

21%

17%

25%

28%

-4%

25%

15%

-1%

-6%

18%

10%

20%

-5%

23%

267%

-2%

38%

12%

-10%

12%

-9%

21%

Arterial

11%

25%

26%

-6%

23%

Local

14%

100%

39%

-3%

28%

10%

22%

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway Arterial Local PM Period (4PM – 8PM) Freeway Arterial Local Daily Total Freeway

Total

Brooklyn – Congested Corridors I-278/Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and I-278/Gowanus Expressway from the Verrazano Narrows Bridge to the Queens County Boundary – The eastbound and westbound directions of these roadways are the 11th and 13th highest-ranked corridors in the United States, respectively, in terms of Delay per Mile in the TTI Report. In the morning, the main issue is eastbound, where Manhattan-bound traffic runs into several choke points in downtown Brooklyn, which are caused by heavy merging and weaving as well as substandard design. The queue formed by this spills back for several miles onto the Gowanus Expressway to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. According to the TTI report, average travel times are roughly 2.5 times free flow, with travel times over 3 times free flow once per week and almost 5 times free flow once a month. In the evening, the main eastbound choke points are the point where traffic from the Williamsburg Bridge merges in, and merging and weaving that takes place east of that point (as the road approaches the steep incline to the peak of the Kosciuszko Bridge and the nearby exit to the Long Island Expressway). The main westbound choke points in the evening are the point where traffic from the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel merges in, and merging and weaving that takes place between that point and the exit for the Prospect Expressway. As I-278 is the only limited-access highway traversing Brooklyn that is open to through trucks, it plays a very important role in the regional flow of goods between the ports in New Jersey/Brooklyn and consumers and businesses in Queens and Long Island. Consequently, the economic cost of the congestion on I-278 is very high. Ocean Parkway/Prospect Expressway from Kings Highway to I-278/Gowanus Expressway – Ocean Parkway is a six-lane arterial boulevard with many signalized intersections, while Prospect Expressway is a limited access roadway. Both carry large volumes of traffic between southern Brooklyn and downtown Brooklyn and the bridges to Manhattan. Congestion occurs northbound in the morning peak and southbound in the evening peak. Choke points include the intersection with Church Avenue and the northern terminus, where traffic along the BQE creates a backup onto Prospect Expressway.

6-12

Flatbush Avenue from Avenue N to Concord Street – This is a four- to six-lane arterial with many signalized intersections, carrying large volumes of traffic between central Brooklyn and downtown Brooklyn and the Manhattan Bridge. Flatbush Avenue traverses central Brooklyn at an angle creating many “irregularly shaped” intersections that create congestion due to the awkward geometry. There is a major chokepoint in the morning where traffic from eastbound I-278 (and westbound I-278 via Tillary Street) merges into the Manhattan-bound flow. Flow is also restricted by interactions with major generators along the northern half of this roadway section, such as the Barclays Center, the Brooklyn Academy of Music, and the Long Island University campus. Pedestrian crossings are a significant congestion-causing factor. Congestion occurs mostly southbound in the evening peak and northbound in the morning peak. Atlantic Avenue from Flatbush Avenue to Conduit Boulevard – This is a six-lane arterial with many signalized intersections, carrying large volumes of traffic between eastern Brooklyn and downtown Brooklyn and (via connecting roadways) the bridges to Manhattan. Again, pedestrian crossings are a significant factor, as Atlantic Avenue traverses several densely developed residential and street level “mom and pop” commercial areas, as well as large facilities including the Barclays Center and the Interfaith Medical Center. Congestion occurs westbound in the morning peak and eastbound in the evening peak. Brooklyn Bridge – The southernmost bridge across the East River connecting Brooklyn with lower Manhattan, it carries 6 lanes of traffic (3 in each direction). These lanes are heavily utilized because the bridge is toll-free and due to the direct or semi-direct connections that exist between the bridge and I-278 in Brooklyn and the FDR Drive in Manhattan. Congestion occurs at the points where traffic merges onto and off of the bridge from/to these highways, as well as at other points where bridge traffic interacts with the Brooklyn and Manhattan street network. Congestion occurs inbound (toward Manhattan) in the morning peak and outbound (toward Brooklyn) in the evening peak. Bushwick Avenue from Meserole Street to Jamaica Avenue – This four-lane roadway is one of several primary routes connecting Brooklyn with the Williamsburg Bridge. The 4-lane roadway serves Central Brooklyn and remains congested throughout the day. A major choke point is located at the southern end of the corridor, near the intersection with Jackie Robinson Parkway by way of Highland Boulevard. The volume from those roadways significantly slows down Bushwick Avenue due to constraints. Congestion occurs to the west during the morning peak and to the east during the evening peak. Williamsburg Bridge – This bridge carries 8 traffic lanes (and a subway line) across the East River. In Brooklyn, it has excellent connections with I-278 to/from the east, but is accessible only via Delancey Street in Manhattan (which is a dense commercial area with significant pedestrian traffic), causing long backups on the bridge approaching Manhattan in the morning, and heavy delays on Manhattan streets leading to the bridge in the evening. Belt Parkway from the Verrazano Narrows Bridge to Queens County Line – This is the only major roadway that connects southern Brooklyn with southern Queens and connects passenger car traffic from Staten Island/New Jersey with Queens and eastern Long Island. The roadway also serves a critical link to JFK airport. While not one of the most congested limited access roadways in New York City, the Belt Parkway sees its share of congestion. Congestion during morning peak is concentrated near Flatbush Avenue and is evenly split in both directions while the evening peak is concentrated between Pennsylvania Avenue and Shell Road with slowdowns in both directions. Major roadway improvements are currently under way to upgrade seven bridges along the Belt Parkway to bring it up to current standards. The project includes the approaches to the roadway in addition to the new bridges. Not only is current congestion at least partially temporary due to ongoing construction, but this project should help alleviate at least a portion of future congestion issues along the route.

6-13

Locally Congested Roadways in Brooklyn, including Broadway, Caton Avenue, Fort Hamilton Parkway, Church Avenue, Cortelyou Road, Flatlands Avenue, Empire Boulevard, Fulton Street, Myrtle Avenue and Flushing Avenue â&#x20AC;&#x201C; These roadways are vital to connecting various parts of Brooklyn to each other. They are typically low speed roads with dense commercial activity and connect drivers to the more regional roadways listed above. With less priority than the major roadways and abundant pedestrian activity, even modest volumes can often result in severe congestion along these roadways.

6-14

Figure 6.7 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Brooklyn

6-15

Figure 6.8 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Brooklyn

6-16

6.3 Manhattan

6-17

Figure 6.9 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Manhattan

Population 2017

2045

VHD Daily Totals 4.7% change

1,554,352

1,628,115

2017

3,000,000

8,804,885

6.4% change

VMT

2017

457,656

2045

VMT Daily Totals

9,368,120

Manhattan 24-Hour VMT

2,000,000 1,000,000 0

2045

17.6% change

389,309

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour of Day 2017

2045

Figure 6.10 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Manhattan and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area

Note: The two-way daily trip tabulations include transit and all classes of highway trips (auto + truck)

6-18

Table 6.7 - 2017 Performance Measures, Manhattan Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.53

16%

190.5

2.35

2.11

7.70

94,161

139,358

872,248

Arterial

0.25

175.8

1.12

0.77

8.90

39,583

58,583

744,908

Local

0.14

2.1

1.03

0.60

7.10

2,588

3,831

172,506

Freeway

0.28

236.1

1.56

1.76

14.50

48,839

72,281

1,032,387

Arterial

0.11

103.2

1.04

0.70

12.60

16,685

24,694

802,827

Local

0.06

2.1

1.01

0.61

7.80

1,711

2,533

132,404

Freeway

0.46

13%

1,099.3

1.92

1.97

11.80

271,620

401,997

4,303,834

Arterial

0.21

584.3

1.08

0.71

11.30

109,507

162,070

3,734,561

Local

0.12

8.4

1.02

0.60

7.50

8,182

12,109

766,490

389,309

576,176

8,804,885

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Table 6.8 - 2045 Performance Measures, Manhattan Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.54

16%

199.7

2.48

2.16

7.50

103,206

152,745

929,045

Arterial

0.27

204.6

1.13

0.77

8.60

45,280

67,015

796,767

Local

0.15

2.4

1.03

0.60

7.00

3,538

5,237

199,298

Freeway

0.30

280.8

1.70

1.79

13.00

61,986

91,739

1,120,397

Arterial

0.12

132.2

1.05

0.70

12.20

19,305

28,571

828,585

Local

0.06

2.1

1.01

0.62

7.70

1,689

2,500

143,068

Freeway

0.47

14%

1,234.5

2.08

2.02

10.80

324,576

480,373

4,610,923

Arterial

0.22

674.6

1.09

0.72

11.00

123,499

182,779

3,894,659

Local

0.12

9.3

1.02

0.61

7.40

9,581

14,179

862,538

457,656

677,331

9,368,120

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

6-19

Table 6.9 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Manhattan Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

-3%

10%

Arterial

16%

-3%

14%

Local

14%

-1%

37%

16%

Freeway

13%

19%

-10%

27%

Arterial

28%

-3%

16%

Local

100%

-1%

Freeway

12%

-8%

19%

Arterial

50%

15%

-3%

13%

Local

11%

-1%

17%

13%

18%

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Manhattan – Congested Corridors Manhattan’s traffic congestion patterns are distinctly different from all of the other counties, as the result of two factors: •

Manhattan contains the region’s Central Business District and an extremely high concentration of other trip generators.

•

Manhattan is an island that can be accessed using a limited number of bridges and tunnels, which tend to constrain the flow of traffic into Manhattan in the morning and out of Manhattan in the evening.

Therefore, there is relatively little traffic congestion within Manhattan in the morning, because entering flows are constrained by the river crossings. Traffic on streets serving major intra-Manhattan traffic flows experience congestion in the middle of the day. In the evening, congestion is present on the main routes leading to the most heavily used exit points from Manhattan (as well as at major evening entertainment and tourism locations – particularly Times Square and the adjacent Theater District). Key congested locations include: •

Harlem River Drive (HRD) from the RFK Bridge to I-95 Ramps – In the morning, this road is congested southbound approaching the point where traffic flows from the Third Avenue and RFK Bridges merge in and continue south onto the FDR Drive. The traffic queue from these choke points regularly spills back almost to I-95/Trans-Manhattan Expressway. In the evening, the pattern is reversed, with the choke point being where traffic from the HRD merges onto southbound I-95 (approach to the George Washington Bridge). There is also a southbound evening traffic queue at the same location as the morning queue, but much less severe.

•

I-95/Trans-Manhattan Expressway from the George Washington Bridge (GWB) to the Alexander Hamilton Bridge – Both the inner and outer roadways are congested all day long due to merging and weaving at and between entrances and exits to/from several major connecting highways and well as local streets.

6-20

•

NY-9A/Henry Hudson Parkway/Joe DiMaggio Highway from Barclay Street to I-95/Trans-Manhattan Expressway/GWB – In the morning, this largely elevated expressway is congested southbound approaching the end of the expressway at West 57th Street (at which point Route 9A continues as 12th Avenue, an eight-lane surface arterial with frequent signalized intersections) and the extremely high-volume intersection with West 42nd Street, after which 12th Avenue has only three southbound lanes. The traffic queues spilling back from these choke points regularly extend about two to three miles in the morning peak. In the evening, the choke point is at the ramps to I-95, causing a miles-long northbound queue.

•

FDR Drive from the Williamsburg Bridge to the RFK Bridge – This expressway carries high volumes of traffic northbound and southbound for its entire length. It is the only limited access highway serving this entire stretch, and the only limited access highway of any kind on the East Side. It has many complex merging, weaving, and substandard sections that create choke points throughout the day. In the morning, southbound congestion eases considerably south of Midtown due to the large portion of traffic exiting in Midtown.

•

Midtown Streets, and Downtown Streets – These are congested all day, but especially during the afternoon and evening periods when they are affected by both heavy pedestrian flows and spillbacks from bridges and tunnels leaving Manhattan. Among the most congested midtown streets, 42nd Street, 57th Street, 59th Street, 65th Street, 66th Street, York Avenue and 1st Avenue are very congested, while in downtown, Water Street and Madison Street are among the most congested.

•

Canal Street from NY-9A/West Street to Allen Street – This downtown roadway is called out for special attention due to its functions as a connector to/from both the Holland Tunnel and the Manhattan Bridge, as well as serving trips within Manhattan. It is also an area of extremely high pedestrian activity, and is a commercial center in its own right that has more intense activity on weekends than on weekdays.

•

I-278 between Robert F Kennedy Bridge (Triborough Bridge) and Central Road – This bridge connects Queens to Manhattan and the Bronx by way of the Grand Central Parkway, Bruckner Expressway, Major Deegan Expressway, and Harlem River Drive. This corridor is the easternmost connection from Queens to the Bronx without entering Manhattan. The evening peak is significantly congested on the southbound approach to the Grand Central Parkway and the backup can extend onto Randall’s Island. The morning peak is very congested northbound due to the severe congestion along Harlem River Drive.

•

New Jersey Tunnel Crossings – The Holland and Lincoln tunnels provide critical access between Manhattan and neighboring New Jersey. Both of these tunnels generate significant congestion within Manhattan during the PM peak as vehicles queue along city streets to enter the tunnels.

6-21

Figure 6.11 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Manhattan

6-22

Figure 6.12 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Manhattan

6-23

6.4 Nassau

6-24

Figure 6.13 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Nassau

Population 2017

2045

VHD Daily Totals 1,331,922

16.5% change

1,551,625

2017

29,231,875

6,000,000

12.1% change

VMT

2017

538,860

2045

VMT Daily Totals

32,778,256

Nassau 24-Hour VMT

4,000,000 2,000,000 0

2045

51.4% change

355,904

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour of Day 2017

2045

Figure 6.14 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Nassau and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area

Note: The two-way daily trip tabulations include transit and all classes of highway trips (auto + truck)

6-25

Table 6.10 - 2017 Performance Measures, Nassau Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.46

337.1

1.35

1.56

33.00

29,550

51,713

2,332,780

Arterial

0.25

38.5

1.08

1.12

24.00

11,374

19,904

1,870,203

Local

0.16

2.0

1.04

0.99

23.20

4,618

8,082

1,185,390

Freeway

0.20

158.3

1.11

1.31

41.40

15,748

27,559

2,370,031

Arterial

0.09

6.4

1.02

1.13

26.20

4,402

7,704

1,606,768

Local

0.06

1.8

1.01

0.99

24.10

2,330

4,077

1,027,637

Freeway

0.41

2,266.1

1.41

1.62

27.60

226,164

395,787

12,130,143

Arterial

0.23

544.0

1.08

1.13

22.50

87,924

153,867

10,247,328

Local

0.16

30.9

1.04

0.99

22.00

41,816

73,178

6,854,404

355,904

622,832

29,231,875

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Table 6.11 - 2045 Performance Measures, Nassau Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.50

10%

435.9

1.48

1.70

28.70

43,486

76,101

2,541,404

Arterial

0.30

81.7

1.13

1.10

21.90

19,664

34,412

2,138,905

Local

0.19

4.6

1.06

0.97

21.80

8,029

14,050

1,408,209

Freeway

0.22

211.6

1.17

1.34

36.10

26,223

45,891

2,627,776

Arterial

0.10

19.0

1.03

1.12

24.70

7,789

13,631

1,773,081

Local

0.08

1.2

1.02

0.98

22.70

4,378

7,661

1,197,696

Freeway

0.44

10%

2,704.0

1.55

1.73

23.60

322,866

565,015

13,157,338

Arterial

0.27

1,049.3

1.13

1.11

20.30

144,936

253,639

11,550,856

Local

0.19

53.4

1.07

0.97

20.40

71,058

124,351

8,070,062

538,860

943,005

32,778,256

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

6-26

Table 6.12 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Nassau Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

11%

17%

Arterial

20%

100%

Local

19%

Freeway

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

29%

10%

-13%

47%

112%

-2%

-9%

73%

14%

130%

-2%

-6%

74%

19%

10%

50%

100%

34%

-13%

67%

11%

Arterial

11%

197%

-1%

-6%

77%

10%

Local

33%

-33%

-1%

-6%

88%

17%

13%

43%

19%

10%

-14%

43%

Arterial

17%

50%

100%

93%

-2%

-10%

65%

13%

Local

19%

73%

-2%

-7%

70%

18%

51%

12%

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total Freeway

Total

Nassau – Congested Corridors I-495/Long Island Expressway from Queens County Boundary to Suffolk County Boundary – The westernmost portion of this stretch of I-495 (from the Queens County Boundary to Mineola/Willis Avenue) is part of the 16th highest-ranked corridor in the United States in terms of Congestion Cost in the TTI Report. The entire length of I-495 in Nassau County regularly experiences severe congestion mostly (but not exclusively) during peak commuting periods and around summer weekends, due to insufficient mainline capacity, frequent merges and weaves, and heavy truck usage. The eastbound direction is generally heaviest in evening peaks and on summer Fridays. The westbound direction is generally heaviest in morning peaks and on summer Sundays. The heavy usage of this road by trucks (I-495 is the only east-west limited-access highway in Nassau County on which trucks are permitted) causes the economic cost of the congestion on I-495 to be very high. Through Nassau County, I-495 (between Exit 33 in Lake Success and Exit 46 in Plainview) has a one-lane HOV-3 facility restricted to buses, van pools, taxis, and passenger vehicles carrying three or more occupants during the morning and evening rush hour. Northern State Parkway (NSP) from Queens County Boundary to Suffolk County Boundary – Essentially similar circumstances as I-495/LIE, except that congestion is not quite as severe and trucks are not permitted on this road. Southern State Parkway from Queens County Boundary to Suffolk County Boundary – Essentially the similar circumstance as the Northern State Parkway. Meadowbrook State Parkway from Zeckendorf Boulevard to the Northern State Parkway – The heaviesttraveled north-south road in the county. It abuts the Nassau “Hub” area containing Roosevelt Field, Nassau Community College, the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, Hofstra University, and other shopping centers and major generators. The northbound direction is generally heaviest in morning peaks and the southbound direction is generally heaviest in evening peaks.

6-27

NY-27/Sunrise Highway from the Queens County Boundary to NY 125 – This heavily traveled six-lane arterial has frequent signalized intersections and abuts major retail and other commercial centers as well as active Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) stations. It also carries the second highest (after I-495) east-west truck volume among Long Island highways. The eastbound direction is generally heaviest in evening peaks. The westbound direction is generally heaviest in morning peaks. There is significant pedestrian activity, particularly in the vicinity of the LIRR stations. Northern Boulevard between the Queens County Boundary and Shelter Rock Road – This east-west arterial roadway provides access to the north shore communities of Nassau County, including the large employment centers of Great Neck and Manhasset, in addition to healthcare and LIRR stations. The roadway also serves as an alternative to the Long Island Expressway and sees heavy congestion to the west during morning hours and to the east during evening hours. Hempstead Turnpike between Queens County Boundary and the Wantagh State Parkway – This major arterial roadway serves a number of congested locations, including downtown Hempstead, Hofstra University, and the Nassau Coliseum. Due to the high number of traffic lights and high volumes, the roadway exhibits frequent congestion. The worst congestion occurs to the west in the morning peak and to the east in the evening peak.

6-28

Figure 6.15 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Nassau

6-29

Figure 6.16 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Nassau

6-30

6.5 Putnam

6-31

Figure 6.17 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Putnam

Population 2017

VHD Daily Totals 97,574

9.3% change

106,618

2045

2017

3,484,730

1,000,000

12.9% change

VMT

2017

4,808

2045

VMT Daily Totals

3,935,760

Putnam 24-Hour VMT

500,000 0

2045

46.2% change

3,288

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour of Day 2017

2045

Figure 6.18 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Putnam and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area

Note: The two-way daily trip tabulations include transit and all classes of highway trips (auto + truck)

6-32

Table 6.13 - 2017 Performance Measures, Putnam Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.21

6.6

1.05

1.24

58.10

696

1,002

355,786

Arterial

0.12

0.0

1.02

0.87

32.80

389

560

238,086

Local

0.07

0.0

1.01

0.77

29.50

279

402

274,711

Freeway

0.05

0.0

1.00

1.25

65.40

232,156

Arterial

0.03

0.0

1.00

0.87

34.20

144,090

Local

0.02

0.0

1.00

0.77

30.00

171,888

Freeway

0.13

11.8

1.02

1.24

62.50

1,023

1,473

1,360,809

Arterial

0.08

0.0

1.01

0.87

32.80

1,253

1,804

955,458

Local

0.05

0.0

1.01

0.77

29.50

1,012

1,457

1,168,463

3,288

4,734

3,484,730

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Table 6.14 - 2045 Performance Measures, Putnam Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.25

14.5

1.07

1.26

56.70

974

1,402

413,583

Arterial

0.13

0.0

1.02

0.88

30.80

462

665

254,569

Local

0.08

0.0

1.01

0.76

28.60

397

571

315,009

Freeway

0.06

0.5

1.01

1.24

64.70

278,511

Arterial

0.03

0.0

1.00

0.88

31.90

157,159

Local

0.02

0.0

1.00

0.78

29.20

195,259

Freeway

0.15

20.5

1.03

1.24

60.90

1,830

2,635

1,595,080

Arterial

0.09

0.0

1.01

0.88

30.80

1,489

2,145

1,013,042

Local

0.06

0.0

1.01

0.77

28.50

1,489

2,145

1,327,638

4,808

6,925

3,935,760

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

6-33

Table 6.15 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Putnam Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

19%

-50%

120%

-2%

40%

16%

-6%

19%

14%

-1%

-3%

42%

15%

20%

100%

-1%

195%

204%

20%

Arterial

-7%

36%

37%

Local

-3%

52%

14%

Freeway

15%

100%

74%

-3%

79%

17%

Arterial

13%

-6%

19%

Local

20%

-3%

47%

14%

46%

13%

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway Arterial Local PM Period (4PM – 8PM) Freeway

Daily Total

Total

Putnam – Congested Location According to the most current modeling efforts, there are no highly congested corridors in Putnam County. This is indicated in Table 6.13 by only three (3) percent of county links showing congestion and average travel speeds that are at or near free-flow speeds during the morning and evening peak periods.

6-34

6.6 Queens

6-35

Figure 6.19 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Queens

Population 2017

2045

VHD Daily Totals 2,277,818

5.3% change

2,397,620

2017

19,658,724

6,000,000

7.3% change

VMT

2017

965,630

2045

VMT Daily Totals

21,083,999

Queens 24-Hour VMT

4,000,000 2,000,000 0

2045

20.8% change

799,586

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour of Day 2017

2045

Figure 6.20 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Queens and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area

Note: The two-way daily trip tabulations include transit and all classes of highway trips (auto + truck)

6-36

Table 6.16 - 2017 Performance Measures, Queens Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.72

25%

829.4

2.85

1.79

9.60

236,403

349,877

2,782,943

Arterial

0.32

424.4

1.15

0.97

13.10

45,472

67,298

1,400,273

Local

0.27

2.1

1.10

1.12

11.40

14,664

21,703

575,316

Freeway

0.20

216.5

1.30

1.08

27.80

29,807

44,114

1,785,005

Arterial

0.07

37.4

1.02

0.93

19.90

6,060

8,969

706,261

Local

0.06

0.0

1.00

1.11

16.50

442

655

209,150

Freeway

0.50

14%

3,105.0

2.01

1.71

13.60

602,995

892,432

11,143,697

Arterial

0.23

1,537.9

1.10

0.95

14.80

147,718

218,622

5,988,403

Local

0.21

7.3

1.07

1.12

12.30

48,873

72,333

2,526,624

799,586

1,183,387

19,658,724

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Table 6.17 - 2045 Performance Measures, Queens Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.76

27%

912.0

3.11

1.74

9.00

278,770

412,580

3,019,914

Arterial

0.35

484.1

1.18

0.99

12.50

54,190

80,201

1,503,809

Local

0.31

3.7

1.11

1.12

11.00

17,552

25,976

640,730

Freeway

0.22

264.2

1.40

1.24

24.70

41,805

61,871

1,964,387

Arterial

0.07

46.9

1.02

0.92

19.40

7,086

10,487

729,300

Local

0.06

0.0

1.01

1.09

16.20

476

704

208,436

Freeway

0.53

16%

3,559.0

2.19

1.74

12.40

736,334

1,089,775

12,050,545

Arterial

0.25

1,766.4

1.12

0.95

14.20

173,776

257,189

6,354,922

Local

0.22

8.3

1.07

1.11

12.00

55,519

82,168

2,678,531

965,629

1,429,132

21,083,998

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

6-37

Table 6.18 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Queens Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

14%

10%

-3%

-6%

18%

Arterial

20%

14%

-5%

19%

15%

40%

76%

-4%

20%

11%

10%

50%

22%

15%

11%

40%

10%

Arterial

25%

-1%

-3%

17%

Local

-2%

Freeway

14%

15%

-9%

22%

Arterial

50%

33%

15%

-4%

18%

Local

14%

-1%

-2%

14%

21%

Local PM Period (4PM – 8PM) Freeway

Daily Total

Total

Queens – Congested Corridors I-495/Long Island Expressway from the Queens-Midtown Tunnel to the Nassau County Boundary – The stretch of I-495 from Maurice Avenue/Exit 18 to the Nassau County Boundary is part of the 16th highest-ranked corridor in the United States in terms of Congestion Cost in the TTI Report. The entire length of I-495 in Queens County regularly experiences severe congestion mostly (but not exclusively) during peak commuting periods, due to insufficient mainline capacity, frequent merges and weaves, and heavy truck usage. The eastbound direction is heaviest in evening peaks. The westbound direction is heaviest in morning peaks. The heavy usage of this road by trucks (I-495 is the only east-west limited access Queens highway on which trucks are permitted) causes the economic cost of the congestion on I-495 to be very high. Grand Central Parkway (GCP) from the RFK Bridge to the Nassau County Boundary – The entire length of the GCP regularly experiences severe congestion mostly (but not exclusively) during peak commuting periods, due to insufficient mainline capacity, and frequent merges and weaves. The eastbound direction is heaviest in evening peaks. The westbound direction is heaviest in morning peaks. Trucks are not permitted on this road. I-678/Van Wyck Expressway from the Belt Parkway to the GCP – In the northbound direction, this stretch of I-678 is the 4th highest-ranked corridor in the United States in terms of Delay per Mile in the TTI Report. In the southbound direction, it is the 19th highest-ranked corridor in the United States in terms of Delay per Mile. The only limited-access highway connecting JFK Airport (including its substantial air cargo facilities) and southern Queens/southwestern Nassau County with central Queens—where it connects with I-495, the GCP, Queens Boulevard, Union Turnpike, and the Jackie Robinson Parkway (JRP)—this portion of I-678 and its northbound Service Road experience severe congestion during many hours of the day due to insufficient mainline capacity, frequent merges and weaves, and heavy truck usage.

6-38

Belt Parkway/Cross Island Parkway from Brooklyn Boundary to Hempstead Avenue – The only east-west limited-access highway in southern Queens (primarily serving traffic to/from JFK Airport as well as through trips between Brooklyn and southern Nassau County) and the only continuous north-south limited-access highway in eastern Queens, the entire length of the Belt Parkway in Queens experiences severe congestion mostly (but not exclusively) during peak commuting periods, due to insufficient mainline capacity, and frequent merges and weaves. The eastbound direction in southern Queens and southbound direction in eastern Queens are heaviest in evening peaks. The westbound direction in southern Queens and northbound direction in eastern Queens are heaviest in morning peaks. Congestion between Hempstead Avenue and the Whitestone Bridge is not as severe as the remainder of the corridor, but as with most major roadways in New York City, it can occur at any time. Trucks are not permitted on this road. Jackie Robinson Parkway (JRP) from the Brooklyn Boundary to the GCP – The only limited-access highway connecting eastern Brooklyn with central Queens – where it connects with the GCP, Queens Boulevard, Union Turnpike, and I-678/Van Wyck Expressway – the entire length of the JRP in Queens experiences severe congestion during peak commuting periods, due to insufficient mainline capacity, and frequent merges and weaves. The eastbound direction is heaviest in evening peaks. The westbound direction is heaviest in morning peaks. Trucks are not permitted on this road. I-278/Brooklyn-Queens Expressway from the Brooklyn Boundary to the RFK Bridge – The southern portion of this stretch of I-278 (from the Kosciuszko Bridge to NY-25A/Northern Boulevard) is part of the 13th highest-ranked corridor in the United States in terms of Delay per Mile in the TTI Report. The only north-south limited access highway in western Queens, I-278 experiences heavy congestion during peak commuting periods due to insufficient mainline capacity, heavy merges and weaves, and heavy truck usage, and spillbacks from congestion on the GCP/RFK Bridge approach. The eastbound/northbound direction is heaviest in evening peaks. The westbound/southbound direction is heaviest in morning peaks. Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge – The only toll-free East River crossing between Queens and Manhattan, this bridge (also known as the 59th Street Bridge) experiences heavy congestion primarily (but not exclusively) during peak commuting periods due to insufficient mainline capacity, and interactions with the street systems on both ends (it has no direct connections with limited-access highways on either side). The eastbound (outbound) direction is heaviest in evening peaks. The westbound (inbound) direction is heaviest in morning peaks. Queens Boulevard from the Queensboro Bridge to Main Street – This major six-lane arterial roadway connects Manhattan via the Queensboro Bridge to the heart of Queens via I-678/Van Wyck Expressway and the Grand Central Parkway. Due to the volumes on this roadway, in addition to traffic lights, heavy turns, and adjacent commercial activity, the roadway has significant peak congestion, primarily westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening. Other Locally Congested Roadways in Queens, Including Woodhaven Boulevard/Cross Bay Boulevard, and Hempstead Ave – These busy roadways experience significant congestion due to high volumes and limited roadway capacities.

6-39

Figure 6.21 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Queens

6-40

Figure 6.22 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Queens

6-41

6.7 Rockland

6-42

Figure 6.23 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Rockland

Population 2017

2045

VHD Daily Totals

317,448

20.8% change

383,610

2017

2,000,000

23.0% change

VMT

8,275,831

46,716

2045

VMT Daily Totals 2017

10,180,661

Rockland 24-Hour VMT

1,000,000 0

2045

94.9% change

23,964

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour of Day 2017

2045

Figure 6.24 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Rockland and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area

Note: The two-way daily trip tabulations include transit and all classes of highway trips (auto + truck)

6-43

Table 6.19 - 2017 Performance Measures, Rockland Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.33

64.9

1.13

1.39

47.00

4,603

6,628

938,939

Arterial

0.16

7.7

1.04

0.94

27.70

1,577

2,271

510,546

Local

0.11

0.0

1.01

0.93

26.20

655

943

378,810

Freeway

0.12

7.5

1.01

1.24

58.00

749

1,078

803,285

Arterial

0.06

4.1

1.01

0.95

28.50

900

1,296

484,080

Local

0.04

0.0

1.00

0.95

26.60

324

466

346,829

Freeway

0.25

144.4

1.07

1.33

51.50

12,577

18,110

4,091,805

Arterial

0.13

36.7

1.03

0.94

27.40

7,828

11,272

2,413,977

Local

0.09

1.5

1.01

0.94

25.80

3,559

5,125

1,770,049

23,964

34,507

8,275,831

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Table 6.20 - 2045 Performance Measures, Rockland Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.40

121.8

1.24

1.49

41.70

8,915

12,837

1,178,379

Arterial

0.20

13.7

1.07

0.92

25.80

3,531

5,084

635,119

Local

0.13

0.2

1.02

0.93

25.70

1,126

1,621

468,957

Freeway

0.15

21.5

1.03

1.25

55.30

1,846

2,658

1,046,751

Arterial

0.08

7.2

1.02

0.94

27.30

1,843

2,654

578,911

Local

0.05

0.0

1.01

0.93

26.20

531

765

409,827

Freeway

0.30

325.2

1.13

1.35

47.10

24,991

35,987

5,151,821

Arterial

0.16

62.5

1.05

0.93

25.70

16,065

23,133

2,913,048

Local

0.10

1.8

1.02

0.93

25.30

5,660

8,151

2,115,792

46,716

67,271

10,180,661

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

6-44

Table 6.21 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Rockland Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

21%

75%

200%

88%

10%

11%

94%

26%

Arterial

25%

100%

78%

-2%

-7%

124%

24%

Local

18%

100%

-2%

72%

24%

Freeway

25%

100%

187%

-5%

146%

147%

30%

Arterial

33%

76%

-1%

-4%

105%

20%

Local

25%

-2%

64%

18%

Freeway

20%

100%

125%

-9%

99%

26%

Arterial

23%

100%

70%

-1%

-6%

105%

21%

Local

11%

20%

-1%

-2%

59%

20%

95%

23%

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Rockland – Congested Corridors Palisades Interstate Parkway from I-87/I-287 to New Hempstead Road – The Palisades Interstate Parkway is the primary north-south limited access roadway within Rockland County. Significant congestion occurs in the southbound direction near I-287/I-87 in the morning peaks and throughout the entire corridor during the evening peak. Tappan Zee Bridge (TZB) – The only relatively high-capacity crossing of the Hudson River in the northern part of the New York City region, this bridge experiences heavy congestion during peak commuting periods and summer weekends due to insufficient mainline capacity and toll plaza area issues. The eastbound direction is heaviest in morning peaks and on summer Sundays. The westbound direction is heaviest in evening peaks. Construction of a replacement for the TZB started in 2013 and is currently under way. Upon completion of the new bridge, congestion may not ease substantially, however, as there will still be four travel lanes in the peak direction in peak traffic periods.

6-45

Figure 6.25 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Rockland

6-46

Figure 6.26 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Rockland

6-47

6.8 Staten Island

6-48

Figure 6.27 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Staten Island

Population 2017

2045

VHD Daily Totals 474,040

4.4% change

494,682

2017

5,694,789

Staten Island 24-Hour VMT

2,000,000

8.3% change

VMT

2017

97,341

2045

VMT Daily Totals

1,000,000 0

2045

6,170,281

45.6% change

66,842

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour of Day 2017

2045

Figure 6.28 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Staten Island and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area

Note: The two-way daily trip tabulations include transit and all classes of highway trips (auto + truck)

6-49

Table 6.22 - 2017 Performance Measures, Staten Island Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.52

11%

89.4

1.43

1.26

29.60

8,316

12,308

582,265

Arterial

0.21

5.8

1.06

0.84

19.50

2,676

3,960

454,702

Local

0.14

0.0

1.02

0.84

17.80

995

1,473

253,441

Freeway

0.16

19.3

1.07

0.98

41.40

2,149

3,180

443,423

Arterial

0.07

0.4

1.01

0.84

21.00

741

1,097

354,522

Local

0.04

0.0

1.00

0.85

19.50

151

223

211,987

Freeway

0.36

269.1

1.30

1.40

26.10

44,151

65,344

2,339,920

Arterial

0.17

93.9

1.05

0.84

19.10

17,158

25,394

2,118,478

Local

0.11

0.2

1.02

0.83

18.20

5,533

8,189

1,236,391

66,842

98,927

5,694,789

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Table 6.23 - 2045 Performance Measures, Staten Island Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.52

86.5

1.59

1.40

25.90

10,553

15,618

553,980

Arterial

0.28

56.0

1.11

0.84

16.10

9,282

13,737

577,960

Local

0.18

0.0

1.04

0.82

16.60

2,308

3,416

324,282

Freeway

0.18

29.5

1.18

1.24

30.00

6,504

9,626

457,860

Arterial

0.07

1.9

1.01

0.84

20.70

1,069

1,582

374,267

Local

0.05

0.0

1.00

0.85

19.30

189

279

221,491

Freeway

0.36

296.5

1.42

1.48

23.00

55,826

82,622

2,311,384

Arterial

0.19

183.0

1.07

0.85

17.40

32,004

47,366

2,429,060

Local

0.13

0.4

1.02

0.82

17.30

9,512

14,078

1,429,837

97,342

144,066

6,170,281

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

6-50

Table 6.24 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Staten Island Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

-18%

13%

-3%

Arterial

33%

100%

Local

29%

13%

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

11%

-13%

27%

-5%

866%

-17%

247%

27%

-2%

-7%

132%

28%

100%

53%

10%

27%

-28%

203%

375%

-1%

44%

25%

-1%

25%

20%

10%

-12%

26%

-1%

Arterial

12%

100%

95%

-9%

87%

15%

Local

18%

100%

-1%

-5%

72%

16%

46%

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

PM Period (4PM – 8PM) Freeway Arterial Local Daily Total Freeway

Total

Staten Island – Congested Corridors I-278/Staten Island Expressway from the Goethals Bridge to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge – The western portion of this stretch of I-278 is tied for the 39th highest-ranked corridor in the United States in terms of Delay per Mile in the TTI Report. I-278 is the only east-west limited access highway on Staten Island, and also carries a high volume of through traffic between north-central New Jersey and Brooklyn. It is also the route used by trucks carrying cargo between Ports Newark and Elizabeth and Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island. Consequently, I-278 experiences heavy congestion during peak commuting periods and on summer weekends due to insufficient mainline capacity, heavy merges and weaves, heavy truck usage, and steep grades. The eastbound direction is heaviest in both peaks and on summer Sundays, approaching the upgrade between Bradley Avenue and Clove Road. The westbound direction is heaviest on summer Fridays. Goethals Bridge – One of the two bridges connecting north-central New Jersey and Staten Island (and points east), this bridge experiences heavy congestion during peak commuting periods and on summer weekends due to insufficient mainline capacity (two 10-foot lanes per direction), and heavy truck usage. The westbound direction is heaviest in morning peaks and on summer Fridays. The eastbound direction is heaviest in evening peaks and on summer Sundays. A new Goethals Bridge is currently under construction and will replace the existing bridge with phased opening in 2017-18. The completed project will provide three travel lanes in each direction with 12-foot lane widths and full shoulders. Outerbridge Crossing – The second of the two bridges connecting north-central New Jersey and Staten Island (and points east), this bridge experiences heavy congestion during peak commuting periods and very heavy congestion on summer weekends due to heavy traffic to and from New Jersey Shore destinations. The westbound direction is heaviest in morning peaks and on summer Fridays. The eastbound direction is heaviest in evening peaks and on summer Sundays. Heavy truck traffic is restricted to late night hours which provides some traffic relief.

6-51

Figure 6.29 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Staten Island

6-52

Figure 6.30 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Staten Island

6-53

6.9 Suffolk

6-54

Figure 6.31 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Suffolk

Population 2017

2045

VHD Daily Totals 1,475,492

12.2% change

1,655,242

2017

40,983,205

10,000,000

13.8% change

VMT

2017

482,490

2045

VMT Daily Totals

46,643,765

Suffolk 24-Hour VMT

5,000,000 0

2045

64.4% change

293,417

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour of Day 2017

2045

Figure 6.32 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Suffolk and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area

Note: The two-way daily trip tabulations include transit and all classes of highway trips (auto + truck)

6-55

Table 6.25 - 2017 Performance Measures, Suffolk Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.31

184.3

1.15

1.40

41.60

14,020

24,535

2,101,219

Arterial

0.19

40.5

1.05

1.33

26.80

12,717

22,255

2,639,515

Local

0.11

1.9

1.02

1.17

25.80

3,640

6,371

1,751,171

Freeway

0.17

206.4

1.11

1.65

39.40

21,822

38,189

2,686,208

Arterial

0.10

52.8

1.02

1.34

27.20

13,737

24,040

3,234,049

Local

0.06

3.1

1.01

1.18

25.80

3,832

6,706

1,971,765

Freeway

0.32

1,666.8

1.22

1.57

36.60

126,882

222,043

12,743,841

Arterial

0.21

555.7

1.07

1.32

25.00

122,812

214,922

16,791,292

Local

0.13

30.6

1.03

1.18

24.60

43,723

76,515

11,448,072

293,417

513,480

40,983,205

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Table 6.26 - 2045 Performance Measures, Suffolk Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.33

236.1

1.21

1.47

37.80

20,574

36,005

2,316,918

Arterial

0.22

48.7

1.10

1.31

24.60

22,576

39,508

3,014,911

Local

0.13

1.3

1.03

1.22

24.60

6,794

11,890

2,076,928

Freeway

0.19

288.7

1.18

1.99

32.90

39,048

68,335

3,019,225

Arterial

0.11

77.9

1.04

1.34

25.10

24,533

42,932

3,618,062

Local

0.06

5.1

1.01

1.19

24.90

6,415

11,226

2,288,213

Freeway

0.35

2,235.5

1.33

1.77

31.60

197,143

345,001

14,050,537

Arterial

0.23

797.2

1.12

1.31

22.50

210,782

368,868

19,014,749

Local

0.14

42.6

1.04

1.21

23.30

74,565

130,489

13,578,479

482,490

844,358

46,643,765

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

6-56

Table 6.27 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Suffolk Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

33%

50%

28%

-9%

47%

10%

Arterial

16%

20%

-2%

-8%

78%

14%

Local

18%

-32%

-5%

87%

19%

Freeway

12%

100%

40%

21%

-16%

79%

12%

Arterial

10%

48%

-8%

79%

12%

65%

-3%

67%

16%

20%

25%

34%

13%

-14%

55%

10%

100%

43%

-1%

-10%

72%

13%

100%

39%

-5%

71%

19%

64%

14%

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Local Daily Total Freeway Arterial Local Total

Suffolk – Congested Corridors I-495/Long Island Expressway from the Nassau County Boundary to the William Floyd Parkway – While not as severe as the sections of I-495 in Nassau and Queens Counties, I-495 in Suffolk experiences heavy congestion during peak commuting periods and around summer weekends, due to insufficient mainline capacity, frequent merges and weaves, and heavy truck usage. The eastbound direction is generally heaviest in evening peaks and on summer Fridays. The westbound direction is generally heaviest in morning peaks and on summer Sundays. The heavy usage of this road by trucks (I-495 is the only continuous east-west limited-access Long Island highway on which trucks are permitted) causes the economic cost of the congestion on I-495 to be very high. Through Suffolk County, I-495 (between Exit 48 in Melville and Exit 64 in Medford) has a one-lane HOV-3 facility restricted to buses, van pools, taxis, and passenger vehicles carrying three or more occupants during the morning and evening rush hour. NY-27/Sunrise Highway from the Nassau County Boundary to the William Floyd Parkway – The only eastwest limited-access highway in southern central Suffolk County, this road experiences heavy congestion during peak commuting periods and around summer weekends, due to insufficient mainline capacity, frequent merges and weaves, and relatively heavy truck usage. The eastbound direction is generally heaviest in evening peaks and on summer Fridays. The westbound direction is generally heaviest in morning peaks and on summer Sundays. NY-347 from Northern State Parkway (NSP) to Echo Avenue – This five- to six-lane primary arterial is the main roadway connecting western Suffolk County and communities along the northern shore of central Suffolk County. It abuts several major traffic generators, including both County and State offices as well as the Smith Haven Mall. It also provides access to the SUNY at Stony Brook campus. It experiences heavy congestion during peak commuting periods due to insufficient mainline capacity and frequent signalized intersections. The eastbound direction is generally heaviest in evening peaks. The westbound direction is generally heaviest in morning peaks. Sagtikos Parkway/Sunken Meadow Parkway from NY-27/Sunrise Highway to NY-25/Jericho Turnpike – The only north-south completely limited-access highway in Suffolk County, this highway provides connections between

6-57

NY-27, the SSP, I-495, the NSP, and NY-25. It also abuts the Suffolk County Community College campus and various shopping centers and provides access to the Tanger Outlet Mall in Deer Park. It experiences heavy congestion during peak commuting periods primarily due to heavy merging and weaving sections as well as interactions with local streets and land uses. Locally Congested Roadways in Suffolk County, Including Deer Park Road, Jericho Turnpike, Joshuaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Path, Southern State Parkway, and the Nesconset Highway â&#x20AC;&#x201C; These major roadways do not exhibit the same severity of congestion as the primary roadways in Suffolk County, but each one serves high volumes with limited capacity during peak periods. The vast majority of congestion occurs in the westbound direction in the morning peak and eastbound in the evening peak.

6-58

Figure 6.33 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Suffolk

6-59

Figure 6.34 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Suffolk

6-60

6.10 Westchester

6-61

Figure 6.35 - Population and Travel Characteristics, Westchester

Population 2017

2045

VHD Daily Totals 17.6% change

944,708

1,111,160

2017

183,043

2045

VMT Daily Totals

Westchester 24-Hour VMT

6,000,000

24,679,612

14.3% change

VMT

2017

4,000,000 2,000,000 0

2045

60.1% change

114,323

28,207,147

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour of Day 2017

2045

Figure 6.36 - 2045 Two-Way Daily Trips between Westchester and Other Counties in the New York Metro Area

Note: The two-way daily trip tabulations include transit and all classes of highway trips (auto + truck)

6-62

Table 6.28 - 2017 Performance Measures, Westchester Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.29

158.0

1.08

1.41

41.40

17,674

25,450

2,890,435

Arterial

0.13

6.3

1.02

1.21

27.20

3,333

4,799

1,250,499

Local

0.10

0.0

1.01

1.33

25.70

1,854

2,670

918,601

Freeway

0.11

70.3

0.99

1.34

50.00

6,109

8,796

2,685,896

Arterial

0.05

6.0

1.01

1.22

27.60

1,860

2,679

1,099,751

Local

0.03

0.0

1.00

1.33

26.40

748

1,077

785,250

Freeway

0.24

786.5

1.06

1.39

42.00

80,725

116,244

13,748,974

Arterial

0.12

72.7

1.02

1.21

26.40

22,326

32,150

6,341,186

Local

0.08

5.5

1.01

1.32

25.40

11,272

16,231

4,589,452

114,323

164,625

24,679,612

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Table 6.29 - 2045 Performance Measures, Westchester Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

0.33

262.4

1.13

1.46

37.40

27,778

40,001

3,260,747

Arterial

0.16

15.4

1.03

1.21

26.10

5,522

7,952

1,481,473

Local

0.11

0.1

1.02

1.32

24.50

2,594

3,736

1,028,265

Freeway

0.13

106.6

1.00

1.33

47.90

9,644

13,888

3,064,673

Arterial

0.06

9.9

1.01

1.22

26.90

2,674

3,851

1,254,036

Local

0.04

0.2

1.00

1.33

25.30

1,170

1,684

885,264

Freeway

0.27

1,191.1

1.10

1.42

37.90

130,547

187,988

15,663,667

Arterial

0.14

128.3

1.03

1.21

25.40

33,888

48,799

7,348,953

Local

0.09

7.3

1.01

1.32

23.90

18,608

26,795

5,194,526

183,043

263,582

28,207,146

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

6-63

Table 6.30 - Percentage Difference between 2017 and 2045 Performance Measures, Westchester Facility Type

D/C

0.8<=D/C<=1

D/C>1

LMC

TTI

Reliability

ATS

VHD

PHD

VMT

AM Period (6AM – 10 AM) Freeway

14%

33%

50%

66%

10%

57%

13%

Arterial

23%

100%

144%

-4%

66%

18%

Local

10%

100%

-1%

-5%

40%

12%

Freeway

18%

100%

52%

-1%

-4%

58%

14%

Arterial

20%

65%

-3%

44%

14%

Local

33%

100%

-4%

56%

13%

Freeway

13%

50%

51%

10%

62%

14%

Arterial

17%

100%

76%

-4%

52%

16%

Local

13%

33%

-6%

65%

13%

60%

14%

PM Period (4PM – 8PM)

Daily Total

Total

Westchester – Congested Corridors Hutchinson River Parkway (HRP) from the Bronx County Boundary to Connecticut State Line – This is one of the two main north-south commuter highways (the other being I-95) in the eastern part of densely developed southern Westchester County. It also carries through traffic between New York City and Connecticut. It regularly experiences severe congestion during peak commuting periods and summer weekends, due to insufficient mainline capacity, frequent heavy merges and weaves (especially at the Cross County Parkway), and spillbacks from connecting roadways. The southbound direction is heaviest in morning peaks and summer Sundays. The northbound direction is heaviest in evening peaks and summer Fridays. I-95/New England Thruway from the Bronx County Boundary to the Connecticut State Line – Same as the Hutchinson River Parkway, except that I-95 is also a major regional truck route, further adding to congestion, which bears a high economic cost. Bronx River Parkway from the Bronx County Boundary to the Sprain Brook Parkway – Similar to the Saw Mill River Parkway, this narrow (2 lanes/direction) limited-access highway carries heavy commuter flows to/from New York City from the White Plains area. The southbound direction is heaviest in morning peaks, while the northbound direction is heaviest in evening peaks. Congestion is highest near the Bronx County Boundary. Local Roadways including Mount Vernon Avenue, Pelhamdale Avenue, Midland Avenue, New Rochelle Road, and Roberts Avenue – While not as high in volume as the major roadways in Westchester, these roads are still significantly congested due to frequent high density development and intersection delays.

6-64

Figure 6.37 - 2045 Congested Corridors (AM Period), Westchester

6-65

Figure 6.38 - 2045 Congested Corridors (PM Period), Westchester

6-66

7 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES This section provides an overview of potential strategies for facilitating the movement of people and goods by alleviating congestion in the NYMTC planning area, consistent with the goals outlined in NYMTC’s Plan 2045. As part of the CMP, Federal regulations require MPO in transportation management areas to identify potential strategies to reduce congestion and evaluate the expected effectiveness of those strategies in improving the efficiency and safety of existing and future transportation systems. Moreover, because NYMTC’s planning area is part of air quality nonattainment areas designated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the use of Federal funds for the expansion of the transportation system’s capacity to move single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) is precluded unless it is documented that travel demand reduction and operational management strategies cannot fully satisfy the need for the additional capacity. Recognizing a wide range of strategies are available to address mobility challenges, NYMTC has developed a CMP Toolbox of strategies for use in planning congestion-reduction measures around the region. The CMP Toolbox is divided into nine categories of congestion management strategies: 1. Transportation Demand Management strategies (part of TSM&O) – The objective of demand management strategies is to influence travel behavior for both commute and non-commute trips. Subcategories of Transportation Demand Management strategies include: –

Alternative Commute Programs – Promotes alternatives to single-occupancy commuter travel through employer-based programs or other regional initiatives.

–

Pricing/Managed Facilities – Imposes restrictions or fees for the use of specific lanes/roadways with the common goal of reducing the amount of single-occupancy vehicles.

2. Transportation System Management and Operations strategies (TSM&O) – TSM strategies including Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) contribute to a more effective and efficient use of existing systems. Many of these operations-based strategies are supported by the use of enhanced technologies or Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). TSM strategies are divided into seven categories, which are individually detailed as part of the CMP Toolbox Strategies (Appendix A). The strategies include, Intelligent Transportation Systems, Traveler Information, Incident Management, Work Zone Management, Access Management, Congestion Pricing, and Active Transit and Traffic management. The toolbox further subcategorizes TSM strategies as follows: –

Highway/Freeway Operations – Strategies to increase throughput and alleviate the causes of recurring and nonrecurring congestion.

–

Arterial and Local Roads Operations – Strategies to improve traffic flow through the existing network of local roads and intersections.

–

Other Operations Strategies – General operations strategies that can be applied on a regional scale.

3. Transit Strategies – Strategies aimed at making transit more attractive or accessible can help to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Transit strategies commonly supplement the demand management and TSM&O strategies described above. The CMP Toolbox includes the following subcategories of transit strategies: –

Fare Strategies – Encourages additional transit use through fare policies, employer-based incentive programs, or universal fare cards/payment systems.

7-1

–

Operations Strategies – Includes service adjustments to better align transit service with ridership markets. Similar to traffic operations, ITS features often enhance transit operations as well. Also includes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Select Bus Service (SBS) with signal pre-emptions and/or bus-only lanes to provide superior service.

–

Capacity Strategies – Expands transit coverage and/or frequencies to make transit more accessible and attractive to use.

4. Accessibility Strategies – Improves access to transit facilities by both auto and non-auto travel modes. 5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Strategies – Strategies that promote non-motorized travel through the provision of safer bicycle and pedestrian-oriented facilities and amenities. 6. Access Management Strategies – Includes policies, facilities, and design criteria that minimize the number of driveways and intersecting roads accessing a main thoroughfare. 7. Land Use Strategies – Policies to support/encourage mixed-use development, transit-oriented design, and incentives for high-density development. 8. Parking Strategies – Strategies to manage the availability and cost of parking and promote access to transit. 9. Regulatory Strategies – Closely tied to the strategies described above, regulatory strategies restrict vehicle movements or enforce congestion-management policies. 10. Road Capacity Strategies – Addresses improvements to specific bottlenecks (such as interchanges and intersections), as well as the need for more base capacity to the existing road network when all of the other congestion-reduction strategies described above cannot fully satisfy demand. Descriptions of specific strategies within each of these nine categories are included in Appendix A, including a qualitative assessment of congestion and mobility benefits, costs and impacts, and implementation timeframe. Also included in Appendix A are existing TSM and TDM strategies in the NY Region, as reported in Plan 2045. Additionally, NYMTC’s Plan 2045 includes a number of system enhancement projects that will help to alleviate congestion in the NYMTC planning area. A list of these projects is also found in Appendix A.

7-2

Appendix A: CMP Toolbox Strategies

A-1

Table A.1

Transportation Demand Management Strategies Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects

Costs and Impacts

Implementation Timeframe

ALTERNATIVE COMMUTE PROGRAMS 1a. Compressed Work Week/Flexible Work Schedules

•

Decrease peak-period VMT

•

No capital costs

Employer-based

Allows workers to arrive and leave work outside of the traditional commute period. It can be on a scheduled basis or a true flex-time arrangement.

•

Improve travel time among participants

•

Agency costs for outreach and publicity

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

•

Employer costs associated with accommodating alternative work schedules (including collaborative technologies)

1b. Telecommuting Policies

•

Decrease work VMT

•

Allows employees to work at home or in a regional telecommute center instead of traveling to the worksite. They might do this all the time, or only one or more days per week.

•

Decrease SOV trips

First-year implementation costs for privatesector (per employee for equipment and collaborative technologies)

•

Second-year costs tend to decline

1c. Ridesharing Programs

•

Decrease work VMT

•

Savings per carpool and vanpool riders

Employer-based

Includes carpooling, vanpooling, and ride-matching services; typically arranged/encouraged through employers or transportation management agencies (TMA).

•

Decrease SOV trips

•

Costs per year per free parking space provided

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

•

Administrative costs

•

Agency costs for outreach and publicity

•

Requires administrative support from employers

•

Potential to be costly

•

First-year implementation costs for publicsector

The Vanpool Sponsorship Program offers financial incentives for vanpooling in areas where public transportation is not readily available or feasible. 1d. Guaranteed Ride Home Policies

•

Decrease work VMT

Provides a guaranteed ride home at no cost to the employee in the event an employee or a member of their immediate family becomes ill or injured, requiring the employee to leave work

•

Decrease SOV trips

Employer-based Short-term: 1 to 5 years

PRICING/MANAGED FACILITIES 1e. Road Pricing

•

Decrease peak period VMT

Involves pricing facilities to encourage off-peak or HOV travel, and includes time-variable congestions pricing and cordon (area) tolls, high-occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes, and vehicle-use fees.

•

Decrease SOV trips

A-2

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

Table A.2 Transportation System Management Strategies Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects

Costs and Impacts

Implementation Timeframe

HIGHWAY/FREEWAY OPERATIONS •

Increase peak direction capacity

•

Barrier separated costs per mile

•

Decrease peak travel times

•

Operation costs per mile

•

Improve mobility

•

Maintenance costs variable

•

Decrease travel time

•

O&M costs

•

Decrease accidents

•

Improve traffic flow on major facilities

High costs associated with enhancements to centralized control system

•

Capital costs for meters, sensors, and communication equipment

•

Decrease accident delay

•

Capital costs variable and substantial

•

Decrease travel time

•

Annual operating and maintenance costs

•

Decrease VHT and PHT

2d. Service Patrols

•

Reduce incident duration time

•

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

Service vehicles patrol heavily traveled segments and congested sections of the freeways that are prone to incidents to provide faster and anticipatory responses to traffic incidents and disabled vehicles.

•

Restore full freeway capacity

•

Reduce the risks of secondary accidents to motorists

Costs vary based on the number of vehicles used by the patrol, number of routes that the patrol operates, and the population of the area in which the program operates

•

Improve travel time

•

O&M costs per signal

•

Decrease the number of stops

•

Decrease VMT, VHD and PHT by vehicle miles per day, depending on program

Signalized intersections per mile costs variable

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

•

Increase capacity, efficiency on arterials

•

2f. Restricting Turns at Key Intersections

•

Limits turning vehicles, which can impede traffic flow and are more likely to be involved in crashes.

Improve mobility on facility

•

Improve travel times and decrease delay for through traffic

Implementation and maintenance costs vary; range from new signage and striping to more costly permanent median barriers and curbs

•

Decrease incidents

2a. Reversible Traffic Lanes Appropriate where traffic flow is highly directional.

2b. Ramp Metering Regulates the rate and spacing of traffic entering the freeway, allowing freeways to operate at their optimal flow rates. 2c. Freeway Incident Detection and Management Systems Typically includes video monitoring, incident detection, dispatch systems, and emergency response to alleviate nonrecurring congestion.

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years

Medium- to long-term: 10 years or more

ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS OPERATIONS 2e. Traffic Signal Coordination Optimizes traffic flow and reduces emissions by minimizing stops on arterial streets.

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

A-3

Table A.2 Transportation System Management Strategies (continued) Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects

Costs and Impacts

Implementation Timeframe

ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS OPERATIONS (continued) 2g. Converting Streets to One-Way Operations

•

Increase traffic flow

Establishes pairs of one-way streets in place of two-way operations. Most effective in downtown or very heavily congested areas.

•

Conversion costs include adjustments to traffic signals, striping, signing and parking meters

•

May create some confusion, especially for nonlocal residents

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

OTHER OPERATIONS STRATEGIES 2h. Traveler Information Systems

•

Decrease travel times and delay

•

Design and implementation costs variable

Provides travelers with real-time information, such as incidents, speed and travel time estimates, that can be used to make trip and route choice decisions; Information accessible on the web, dynamic message signs, 511 systems, Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), or handheld wireless devices.

•

Some peak-period travel and mode shift

•

Operating and maintenance costs variable

2i. Targeted and Sustained Enforcement of Traffic Regulations

•

Improve travel time

•

Increased labor costs per officer

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

•

Decrease the number of stops

2j. Special Events and Work Zone Management

•

Minimize traffic delays

•

Design and implementation costs variable

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

Includes a suite of strategies, including temporary traffic control, public awareness and motorist information, and traffic operations.

•

Improve mobility

•

Maintain access for businesses and residents

2k. Road Weather Management

•

Improve safety due to reduced crash risk

•

Design and implementation costs variable

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

•

Operating and maintenance costs variable

Improves traffic flow by reducing violations that cause delays; Includes automated enforcement (e.g., red light cameras).

Identifying weather and road surface problems and rapidly targeting responses, including advisory information, control measures, and treatment strategies.

•

Increased mobility due to restored capacity, delay reductions, and more uniform traffic flow

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years

A-4

Table A.2 Transportation System Management Strategies (continued) Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects

Costs and Impacts

Implementation Timeframe

OTHER OPERATIONS STRATEGIES (continued) 2l. Traffic Surveillance, Control Systems, and Active Traffic Management Often housed within a Traffic Management Center (TMC), monitors volume and flow of traffic by a system of sensors, and further analyzes traffic conditions to flag developing problems, and implement adjustments to traffic signal timing sequences, in order to optimize traffic flow estimating traffic parameters in real-time.

•

Decrease travel times and delay

•

Design and implementation costs variable

•

Some peak-period travel and mode shift

•

Installation of video surveillance cameras may be less expensive than magnetic loop detectors, which require disruption and digging of the road surface

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years

Currently, the dominant technology traffic surveillance is that of magnetic loop detectors, which are buried underneath roadways and count automobiles passing over them. Video monitoring systems for traffic surveillance may provide vehicle classifications, travel times, lane changes, rapid accelerations or decelerations, and length queues at urban intersections, in addition to vehicle counts and speeds.

A-5

Table A.3 Transit Strategies Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects

Costs and Impacts

Implementation Timeframe

FARE STRATEGIES 3a. Reducing Transit Fares

•

Decrease daily VMT

•

Loss in revenue per rider

Encourages additional transit use.

•

Decrease congestion

•

Capital costs per passenger trip

•

Increase ridership

•

Operating costs per passenger trip

•

Operating subsidies needed to replace lost fare revenue

•

Alternative financial arrangements need to be negotiated with donor agencies

•

Cost of incentives to employers offering employee benefits for transit use

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

Short-term: Less than 1 year

3b. Employer Incentive Programs

•

Increase transit ridership

Encourages additional transit use through transit subsidies of mass transit fares provided by employers.

•

Decrease travel time

•

Decrease daily VMT

3c. Electronic Payment Systems and Universal Fare cards

•

Increase transit ridership

•

Considerably high, but expected to decrease

Interchangeable smartcard payment system (including RFID) that can be used as a fare payment method for multiple transit agencies throughout the region.

•

Decrease travel time

•

Implementation costs vary based on system design and functionality

•

Increase transit ridership

•

Operating costs per trip

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

•

Decrease daily VMT

3e. Intelligent Transit Stops

•

Decrease daily VMT

•

Capital costs per passenger

Ranges from kiosks, which show static transit schedules, to real-time information on schedules, locations of transit vehicles, arrival time of the vehicle, and alternative routes and modes.

•

Decrease congestion

•

Increase ridership

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years (includes planning, engineering, and construction

•

Decrease travel time

•

Implementation costs vary based on system design and functionality and type of equipment

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

3g. Enhanced Transit Amenities

•

Decrease daily VMT

•

Capital costs

Includes vehicle replacement/upgrade, which furthers the benefits of increased transit use.

•

Decrease congestion

•

Increase ridership

Addition of clean fuel bus fleets may be incorporated as part of regular vehicle replacement programs

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

OPERATIONS STRATEGIES 3d. Realigned Transit Service Schedules and Stop Locations Service adjustments to better align transit service with ridership markets.

OPERATIONS STRATEGIES (continued) 3f. Transit Signal Priority Often combined with dedicated rights-of-way for transit and/or bus rapid transit routes.

A-6

Table A.3 Transit Strategies (continued) Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects

Costs and Impacts

Implementation Timeframe

CAPACITY STRATEGIES 3h. Increasing Transit Frequencies or Hours of Service

•

Increase transit ridership

•

Operating costs per trip

Increased frequency makes transit more attractive to use.

•

Decrease travel time

•

New bus purchases likely

•

Decrease daily VMT

3i. Expanding Bus Route Coverage

•

Increase transit ridership

•

Capital costs per passenger trip

Provides better transit accessibility to a greater share of the population.

•

Decrease daily VMT

•

Operating costs per trip

•

New bus purchases likely

3j. Expanding Rail Service

•

Increase transit ridership

•

Capital costs per passenger

Rail transit serves dense urban centers where travelers can walk to their destinations;

•

Decrease daily VMT

•

New systems require large up-front capital outlays and ongoing sources of operating subsidies, in addition to funds that may be obtained from Federal sources, under increasingly tight competition

3k. Dedicated Rights-of-Way for Transit

•

Increase transit ridership

•

Costs vary by type of design

Reserved travel lanes or rights-of-way for transit operations, including use of shoulders during peak periods.

•

Decrease travel time

•

Decrease congestion by increasing vehicle occupancy rate

•

Increase mobility and transit efficiency

•

Increase bicycle mode share

•

Decrease motorized vehicle congestion on access routes

Can be enhanced from suburban areas by providing parkand-ride lots.

Short-term: 1 to 5 year (includes planning, engineering, and construction) Short-term: 1 to 5 year (includes planning, engineering, and construction) Long-term: 10 or more years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

ACCESSIBILITY STRATEGIES 3l. Implementing Park-and-Ride Lots Encourages HOV use for longer distance commute trips.

3m. Improved Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities at Transit Stations Includes improvements to facilities that provide access to transit stops as well as provisions for bicycles on transit vehicles and at transit stops (bicycle racks and lockers).

•

Structure costs for transit stations

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

•

Capital and maintenance costs for bicycle racks and lockers

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

A-7

Table A.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Strategies Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects 4a. New Sidewalks and Designated Bicycle Lanes on Local Streets Enhances the visibility of bicycle and pedestrian facilities; increases the perception of safety.

4b. Improved Bicycle Facilities at Transit Stations and Other Trip Destinations Increases safety with the addition of bicycle racks and bike lockers at transit stations and other trip destinations;

Costs and Impacts

Implementation Timeframe

•

Increase mobility and access

•

Increase non-motorized mode shares

Design and construction costs for paving, striping, signals, and signing

•

ROW costs if widening needed

•

Separate slow-moving bicycles from motorized vehicles

•

Bicycle lanes may require improvements to roadway shoulders to ensure acceptable pavement quality

•

Capital and maintenance costs for bicycle racks and lockers, locker rooms

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

•

Capital costs largely borne by private sector; developer incentives may be needed

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

•

Public sector may be responsible for some capital and/or maintenance costs associated with right-of-way improvements

•

Ordinance development and enforcement costs

•

Capital costs of sidewalk improvements and additional traffic control devices

•

Decrease incidents

•

Increase bicycle mode share

•

Decrease motorized vehicle congestion on access routes

•

Increase pedestrian mode share

•

Discourage motor vehicle use for short trips

•

Decrease VMT

•

Decrease emissions

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

Additional amenities such as locker rooms with showers at workplaces provide further incentives for using bicycles. 4c. Design Guidelines for Pedestrian-Oriented Development Encourages pedestrian activity through the use of design guidelines (i.e., maximum block lengths, building setback restrictions, and streetscape enhancements).

4d. Improved Safety of Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

•

Increase non-motorized mode share

Increases safety by maintaining lighting, signage, striping, traffic control devices, pavement quality; installing curb cuts and extensions, median refuges, and raised crosswalks.

•

Decrease incidents

•

Increase monitoring and maintenance costs

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

A-8

Table A.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Strategies (continued) Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects

Costs and Impacts

4e. Exclusive Non-Motorized Rights-of-Way

•

Increase mobility

•

Right-of-way costs

Use abandoned rail rights-of-way and existing parkland for medium- to long-distance bike trails, improving safety and reducing travel times.

•

Increase non-motorized modes

•

Construction and engineering costs

•

Decrease congestion on nearby roads

•

Maintenance costs

•

Separate slow-moving bicycles from motorized vehicles

•

Decrease incidents

4f. Bike Sharing Programs

•

Increase non-motorized mode share

•

Short-term bicycle rental program supported by a network of automated rental stations.

•

Discourage motor vehicle use for short trips

Capital and maintenance costs for bicycles and rental stations

•

Decrease VMT

Implementation Timeframe Medium-term: 5 to 10 years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

A-9

Table A.5 Access Management Strategies Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects 5a. Curb Cut and Driveway Restrictions

•

Increase capacity, efficiency on arterials

Limits turning vehicles, which can impede traffic flow and are more likely to be involved in crashes.

•

Improve mobility on facility

•

Improve travel times and decrease delay for through traffic

•

Decrease incidents

• • •

Improve travel times and decreased delay for all traffic

5c. Minimum Intersection/Interchange Spacing

•

Increase capacity, efficiency

Decreases number of conflict points and merging areas, which in turn decreases incidents and delays.

•

Improve mobility on facility

•

Improve travel times and decrease delay for through traffic

•

Decrease incidents

5d. Frontage Roads and Collector-Distributor Roads

•

Directs local traffic to major intersections on both super arterials and freeways (parallel frontage roads);

• •

Improve travel times and decreased delay for through traffic

•

Decrease incidents due to fewer conflict points

5e. Roadway Restrictions

•

Increase capacity, efficiency on arterials

Closes access during rush hours (AM and PM peak hours) and aids in the increase of safety levels through the prevention of accidents at problem intersections;

•

Improve mobility on facility

•

Improve travel times and decrease delay for through traffic

5b. Turn Lanes and New, Shared, or Relocated Driveways and Exit Ramps In some situations, increasing or modifying access to a property can be more beneficial than reducing access.

Separate exiting, merging, and weaving traffic from through traffic at closely spaced interchanges (collectordistributor).

Costs and Impacts

Implementation Timeframe

•

Implementation and maintenance costs vary; range from new signage and striping to morecostly permanent median barriers and curbs

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

Increase capacity, efficiency

•

Additional right-of way costs

Improve mobility and safety on facility

•

Design, construction, and maintenance costs

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

•

Part of design costs for new facilities and reconstruction projects

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

Increase capacity, efficiency

•

Additional right-of way costs

Improve mobility on facility

•

Design, construction, and maintenance costs

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

•

Implementation and maintenance costs vary

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

•

Implementation and maintenance costs vary

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

This measure may be effective along mainline segments of a highway, which operate at poor service levels.

•

Decrease incidents

5f. Access Control to Available Development Sites

•

Increase capacity, efficiency on arterials

Coordination of access points to available development sites allows for less interference in traffic flow during construction and/or operation of new developments.

•

Improve mobility on facility

•

Improve travel times and decrease delay for through traffic

•

Decrease incidents

A-10

Table A.6 Land Use Strategies Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects 6a. Mixed-Use Development

•

Increase walk trips

Allows many trips to be made without automobiles People can walk to restaurants and services rather than use their vehicles.

•

Decrease SOV trips

•

Decrease in VMT

•

Decrease vehicle hours of travel

6b. Infill and Densification

•

Decrease SOV

Takes advantage of infrastructure that already exists, rather than building new infrastructure on the fringes of the urban area.

•

Increase transit, walk, and bicycle

•

Doubling density decreases VMT per household

•

Medium/high vehicle trip reductions

6c. Transit-Oriented Development

•

Decrease SOV share

Clusters housing units and/or businesses near transit stations in walkable communities.

•

Shift carpool to transit

•

Increase transit trips

•

Decrease VMT

•

Decrease in vehicle trips

Costs and Impacts •

Public costs to set up and monitor appropriate ordinances

•

Economic incentives used to encourage developer buy-in

•

Public costs to set up and monitor appropriate ordinances

•

Economic incentives used to encourage developer buy-in

•

Public costs to set up and monitor appropriate ordinances

•

Economic incentives used to encourage developer buy-in

Implementation Timeframe Long-term: 10 or more years

Long-term: 10 or more years

A-11

Table A.7 Parking Strategies Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects 7a. On-Street Parking and Standing Restrictions

•

Increase peak-period capacity

Enforcement of existing regulations can substantially improve traffic flow in urban areas Peak-period parking prohibitions can free up extra general purpose travel lanes or special bus or HOV “diamond” lanes.

•

Decrease travel time and congestion on arterials

•

7b. Employer/Landlord Parking Agreements Employers can negotiate leases so that they pay only for the number of spaces used by employees; Alternatively, employers can provide cash-out options for employees not utilizing subsidized parking spaces.

Costs and Impacts

Implementation Timeframe

•

Design, construction, and maintenance costs for signage and striping

Increase HOV and bus mode shares

•

Rigid enforcement of parking restrictions

•

Decrease work VMT

•

Increase non-auto mode shares

Economic incentives used to encourage employer and landlord buy-in

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

•

7c. Parking Management and Pricing

•

Decrease work VMT

•

Increase vehicle occupancy

Relatively low costs, primarily for the private sector, include signing, striping, and administrative costs

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

Strategies include reducing the availability of free parking spaces, particularly in congested areas, or providing preferential or free parking for HOVs; Provides an incentive for workers to carpool. 7d. Location-Specific Parking Ordinances

•

Decrease VMT

•

Increase transit and nonmotorized mode shares

Economic incentives used to encourage developer buy-in

Long-term: 10 or more years

Encourages transit oriented and mixed-use development Parking requirements can be adjusted for factors such as availability of transit, a mix of land uses, or pedestrian-oriented development that may reduce the need for on-site parking. 7e. Park and Ride Lots

•

Decrease VMT

Land acquisition, construction and maintenance are necessary for park-and-ride lots.

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years

Park-and-Ride lots provide parking in areas that are convenient to other modes of transportation, and are commonly located adjacent to train stations, bus lines, or HOV lane facilities.

Increase transit use and ridesharing

7f. Advanced Parking Systems

•

Costs vary based on system complexity

Short-term: 1 to 5 years

Helps drivers find or reserve parking using real-time information about the status of parking availability.

Decrease congestion on local streets

•

Some peak-period travel and mode shift

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

A-12

Table A.8 Regulatory Strategies Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects 8a. Trip Reduction Ordinance

•

Improve air quality

Draws commuters to use other ways to travel to work besides driving alone.

•

Decrease traffic congestion

•

Minimize energy consumption

8b. Congestion Pricing

•

Decrease VMT

Controls peak-period use of transportation facilities by charging more for peak-period use than for off-peak.

•

Increase transit and nonmotorized mode shares

8c. Auto Restriction Zones (Pedestrian Malls)

•

Increase capacity

Allows for a more equitable community, where all residents have an equal access to services within the area.

•

Decrease travel times

•

Increase safety

•

Improve bicycle and pedestrianfriendly roadways

8d. Truck Restrictions

•

Increase capacity

Aims to separate trucks from passenger vehicles and pedestrians.

•

Decrease travel times

Prohibits trucks from traveling on certain roadways, and may call for weight restrictions on certain bridges.

•

Increase safety

•

Improve bicycle and pedestrianfriendly roadways

8e. Arterial Access Management

•

Increase capacity

Involves the application of local and state planning, and regulatory tools in efforts to preserve and/or enhance the transportation functions of roadways.

•

Decrease travel times

•

Increase safety

•

Improve bicycle and pedestrianfriendly roadways

Provides commercial access for pedestrians and non-car users. The most common form of an auto-restriction zone (pedestrian zones) in large cities is the pedestrian mall. Pedestrian malls generally consist of a storefront-lined street that is closed off to most automobile traffic. Emergency vehicles would have access at all times, while delivery vehicles may be restricted to limited delivery hours or entrances on adjacent back streets.

Includes land use ordinances and techniques, corridor preservation, transportation improvements, and techniques in finance.

Costs and Impacts

Implementation Timeframe

•

Requires employers to promote commute alternatives

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years

•

Implementation and maintenance costs vary

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years

•

Design, construction, and maintenance costs

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years

•

Implementation and maintenance costs vary

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years

•

Requires government legislation

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years

•

Implementation and maintenance costs vary

A-13

Table A.9 Road Capacity Strategies Congestion and Mobility Benefits

Strategies/Projects 9a. Increasing Number of Lanes within Existing Cross Section

•

Increase capacity

Takes advantage of excess width in the highway cross section used for break-down lanes or median. 9b. Geometric Design and Bottleneck Improvements

•

Increase mobility

Includes a range of improvements such as widening to provide shoulders, additional turn lanes at intersections, realignment of intersecting streets, auxiliary lanes to improve merging and diverging at entrance/exit ramps, and interchange modifications to decrease weaving sections on a freeway.

•

Decrease congestion by improving bottlenecks

•

Increase traffic flow

•

Decrease incidents due to fewer conflict points

9c. High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

•

Costs and Impacts •

Construction and engineering

•

Maintenance

Implementation Timeframe Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

•

Design, implementation, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs vary by type of design

Short-term: 1 to 5 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

Decrease congestion by reducing VMT

•

HOV, separate ROW costs

•

Increase vehicle occupancy

HOV, barrier separated costs

•

Decrease regional trips

HOV, contra flow costs

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

•

Improve travel times

Annual operations and enforcement

•

Increase transit use and improve bus travel times

•

Can create environmental and community impacts

9d. Super Street Arterials

•

Increase capacity

•

Involves converting existing major arterials with signalized intersections into “super streets” that feature grade-separated intersections.

•

Improve mobility

Construction and engineering substantial for grade separation

•

Maintenance varies based on area

9e. Highway Widening by Adding Lanes

•

Increase capacity

•

Adds new highway lanes (including truck climbing lanes on grades); traditional way to deal with congestion.

•

Improve mobility

Costs vary by type of highway constructed

•

Can create environmental and community impacts

Increases corridor capacity while at the same time providing an incentive for single-occupancy drivers to shift to rideshares. Most effective as part of a comprehensive effort to encourage HOVs, including publicity, outreach, park-and-ride lots, and rideshare matching services.

Medium-term: 5 to 10 years (includes planning, engineering, and implementation)

Medium-term: 10 or more years (includes planning, engineering, and construction)

A-14

Appendix B: TSM & O Projects in the NYMTC Planning Area

B-1

Table B.1 Major Transportation Systems Management Projects/Operations in the NYMTC Planning Area Name

Description

Planned Future Expansion

TSM Category

Related NYMTC/Regional ITS Architecture Strategy

Transit MTA New York City Transit Bus Transit Signal Priority (TSP)

Westchester Bee-Line TSP

To create a wireless and centrally-controlled TSP system which could be deployed anywhere in NYC. Within several years 100% of traffic signals will have state-of-the-art controllers connected through a wireless network to the central NYC traffic computer. The MTA will initially equip 200 buses to communicate with the central NYC traffic computer. Westchester County has installed TSP on the Central Avenue Corridor, extending from the Bronx border to White Plains.

Initially 7 bus routes and corresponding traffic signals; ultimately the entire bus fleet and applicable traffic signals

Initially 78 buses, with entire fleet and additional corridors under consideration Nassau County Hub Nassau County will be installing TSP as part of the Initial Operating All new BRT buses will be Transit Initiative Segment (IOS) of the Hub Transit Initiative. The IOS service will run ordered with TSP, and from Hempstead Village to Roosevelt Field via the Nassau Hub, and signalized intersections along TSP will be an integral component of this new BRT service in Central the IOS will be retrofit with TSP. Nassau. Bus lane enforcement This automated enforcement project will record the license plate Selected bus route corridors in cameras number of vehicles that violate bus lane regulations, and send a New York City summons which is not a moving violation to the owner. The cameras do not capture an image of the people in the vehicle, only the license plate number. Bus Security Cameras Bus security camera systems are currently being installed in MTA buses. The purpose of these cameras is to serve as a deterrent to criminal activity, thereby improving the efficiency and safety of the bus system. In the event of an incident, the video recorded on the cameras can help to explain what transpired and serve as evidence. Rail Control Center Automatic Train Supervision to monitor service and route subway In the coming years, NYCT is (RCC) & Automatic trains to the right tracks. The RCC also centralizes the management looking to expand ATS-like Train Supervision (ATS) of subway maintenance disciplines and customer information capabilities to additional subway systems in stations. Future infrastructure is intended through the lines (lettered lines and the 7) installation of advanced signal systems like Communications-Based Train Control or through adoption of new service monitoring technologies. CommunicationsThe computer-based Communications-Based Train Control allows CBTC is now under Based Train Control subway trains to safely operate closer together and at higher speeds, construction on the 7 and (CBTC) resulting in an increase in maximum track capacity by approximately planned for additional lines as ten percent. they come due for signal modernization MTA LIRR and Metro PTC system is designed to prevent train- to-train collisions, overThe system could be expanded North Positive Train speed derailments, incursions into established work zones limits, and as necessary Control Implementation the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires implementation of PTC on all commuter railroad main-line tracks.

ITS/ADTM

Advanced Traffic Management and Advanced Public Transportation Systems

ITS

Advanced Traffic Management and Advanced Public Transportation Systems Advanced Traffic Management and Advanced Public Transportation Systems

ITS

Advanced Public Transportation

ITS

Advanced Public Transportation

ITS

Advanced Public Transportation

ITS

Advanced Public Transportation

ITS

Advanced Public Transportation System

B-2

Table B.1 Major Transportation Systems Management Projects/Operations in the NYMTC Planning Area (continued) Name PATH Signal System Replacement/Positive Train Control Implementation Bus Time

Real time bus information Public Address/Customer Information Screens (PACIS) Vehicular Traffic Management Advanced Solid State Traffic Controllers

Midtown in Motion

Description Replacement of the PATH signal system to provide Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) and Positive Train Control is ongoing, with PTC compliance on schedule for 2018 completion and full CBTC project completion by 2022. Bus Time is a real-time bus information system for customers. The system can provide next bus information by bus stop or bus route, using computer, handheld or text message. It has the capability to be expanded to offer fixed displays at bus stops. Today the system informs customers how many minutes until the next bus arrives and the distance away Westchester County plans to launch real time bus information in 2017 via Google Transit. Static schedule information is currently available Building upon its ATS and CBTC systems, these are variable message signs which provide real-time train-arrival information to passengers waiting on station platforms and mezzanines.

The new controllers support complex intersections with phase skipping and real-time traffic responsive operation. The new controllers are able to adapt to the variety of communication media and protocols (fiber, coaxial, twist pairs and wireless) in order to support federal NTCIP standards. The ASTC is capable of being computerized, controlled by the TMC and implementing all of the central system timing patterns, scheduled by time of day and as holidayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s event. The new ASTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s are also capable of implementing various traffic patterns for different traffic situations. This system optimizes traffic mobility in midtown Manhattan via a set of field sensors and software equipment, which communicate wirelessly (via NYCWiN) with the joint traffic managements center (JTMC) and adjust signal timing appropriately in real time. The system utilizes ASTC controllers and includes 100 microwave sensors, 32 traffic video cameras and E-ZPass readers at 23 intersections to measure traffic volumes, congestion, and travel times

Planned Future Expansion

TSM Category

Related NYMTC/Regional ITS Architecture Strategy

The system can be expanded as necessary

ITS

Advanced Public Transportation System

NYCDOT is in the process of installing a fixed display with this information at many SBS stops

ITS/Automatic Vehicle location (AVL) and Traveler Information

Advanced Public Transportation System

ITS/Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) and Traveler Information PA/CIS will be installed on other Traveler segments of the system as they Information are outfitted with ATS, CBTC, or other technologies enabling real-time information.

Advanced Public Transportation System

Expansion to include all NYC ITS/Incident 12,800 traffic signals Management

Advanced Traffic Management Systems

The system is being expanded ITS to downtown Flushing in Queens and Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn. If necessary, future expansion of this system could include other areas in NYC

Advanced Traffic Management Systems

Information would initially be available on mobile devices.

Advanced Traveler Information Systems

B-3

Table B.1 Major Transportation Systems Management Projects/Operations in the NYMTC Planning Area (continued) Name

Description

Regional Signal Timing and Coordination

This corridor based traffic signal retiming project improves traffic mobility and safety. It optimizes arterial traffic flow capacity, discourages speeding, and increases pedestrian walk times at crosswalks. This pilot project has been implemented at the entrance to the Staten Island College at Victory Blvd. This is a good signal timing option for improving traffic flow on limited size local areas, where traffic patterns are inconsistent and unpredictable. Smart lights are connected with field sensors to monitor changes in traffic flow and via wireless communication receive signal timing changes from the JTMC almost immediately. This system uses traffic cameras and electronic message boards to monitor and improve traffic flows, as well as to inform drivers. The deployment includes fiber and wireless communication to support video traffic cameras, variable message signs (VMS), radio (RFID) readers and travel time signs. All NYC major construction projects require Mobil ITS deployment to support maintenance and protection of traffic management. Current implementation includes the Korean Veteran Parkway, Belt Parkway, and Jackie Robinson Parkway.

Smart Lights (Adaptive Control System)

Highway Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)

Connected Vehicles (CV) Pilot

In Nassau County, the Traffic Management Center (TMC) located in Westbury, NY, uses ITS to communicate with most of the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s traffic signals, surveillance cameras, travel time signing and eventually, variable message signs along arterial roadways. The goal of the CV Pilot Program is to improve intersection efficiency. Using Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC), the Pilot will collect Basic Safety Message data that may negate the need for existing NYC DOT traffic signal system detection. Approximately 250 intersections will be instrumented with roadside equipment (RSE) to communicate with up to 10,000 vehicles equipped with aftermarket safety devices (ASD). These devices will monitor communications with other connected vehicles and the infrastructure and provide alerts to drivers/operators.

Planned Future Expansion Future expansion includes additional intersections

TSM Category

Related NYMTC/Regional ITS Architecture Strategy

ITS

Advanced Traffic Management Systems

Future expansion could include ITS other NYC areas

Advanced Traffic Management Systems

Future expansion could include other NYC areas.

ITS

Advanced Traffic Management Systems and Maintenance and Construction Operations

ATDM/ITS

Advanced Traffic Management; Advanced Traveler Information Systems

B-4

Table B.1 Major Transportation Systems Management Projects/Operations in the NYMTC Planning Area (continued) Name INFORM (INformation FOR Motorists)

Freight Freight Weight-InMotion (WIM)

Vehicular Information and Support TRANSCOM OpenReach Servers

Description The system is one of the nation's largest and most advanced transportation management systems, and consists of electronic monitoring, communications, signing and control components, providing motorist information for warning and route diversion, ramp control, and signal control. All operations are monitored and controlled by the TMC in Hauppauge.

Planned Future Expansion

TSM Category

Related NYMTC/Regional ITS Architecture Strategy

The Region intends on ITS eventually having approximately 360 centerline miles of instrumented roadway (see related map following this table).

Advanced Traffic Management Systems

Permanent WIM sites have Active Traffic been installed on the Alexander Management Hamilton Bridge, and Van Dam Street and Rockaway Boulevard in Queens. Other WIM sites may be installed at locations on NYC truck routes

Advanced Traffic Management Systems and Commercial Vehicle Operations Systems

It includes more than 4000 vehicle detectors, 206 overhead and 48 portable variable message signs, 1080 traffic signals (500 under central control), 91 ramp meters, 228 closed circuit television cameras, managed lanes, and other ITS features. The goal of this research project is to quantify the damage and the corresponding cost to NYCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s infrastructure caused by heavy vehicles, utilizing WIM sensors placed at strategic locations. The project also obtains data on vehicle speeds, existing axle weights of heavy vehicles and quantifies the annual damage caused by overweight vehicles using PaveDAT, a FHWA software. The project also examines using WIM and License Place Reader (LPR) technologies along with overview cameras for monitoring compliance with regulations.

The TRANSCOM regional architecture is a program that coordinates The system could be expanded the collection and redistribution of traffic flow, origin-destination, as necessary incident, construction, equipment status and special event information data between transportation management centers running the TRANSCOM regional architecture.

ITS/Incident Management/Trave ler Information

511NY

This system is available via phone by dialing 511 or via the web. It The system would include Traveler provides information via text and maps for current traffic and transit additional travel information Information conditions, transit route trip planning, rideshare and other services. elements www.511ny.org

Highway Emergency Local Patrol (HELP)

Patrol Vehicles/Trucks on major roadways provide motorist The system would be expanded ITS/Incident assistance as necessary. They also communicate with local TMC to as necessary to include Management coordinate the response for roadway incidents. additional roadways

Advanced Traffic Management, Public Transportation, Emergency Management and Traveler information Systems Maintenance and Construction Operations Advanced Traveler Information Systems

Emergency Management Systems

B-5

Table B.1 Major Transportation Systems Management Projects/Operations in the NYMTC Planning Area (continued) Name NYSDOT R-11, Regional ITS Deployment

E-ZPass Customer Service Center Transit Operations and Emergency Management Long Island Municipal/County Local Traffic Operation Center (TOC) Mid-Hudson South Municipal/County Local TMC

MTA Bridges & Tunnels Operations Central Command and Control (OCCC)

MTA LIRR Operations Center Systems

Description

Planned Future Expansion

TSM Category

The ITS deployment covers all interstate highways in NYC, including partial coverage along many of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Parkways. It includes an extensive electronic monitoring and communications network that provides motorist information about traffic incidents, road construction, travel time, and other traffic conditions.

Related NYMTC/Regional ITS Architecture Strategy

The system would be expanded ITS in Eastern Queens, Manhattan and southern Brooklyn. Improvements would also include integration via new technologies (i.e., cross-agency TMCs and vehicleIt includes 76 variables message signs, 260 closed circuit television via cameras, more than 600 vehicular detectors, 8 highway advisory radio infrastructure communications) frequencies, managed lanes, and other components. This system includes several Customer Service Centers (CSC) linked The system could be expanded ITS with various Toll Collection subsystems. The centers manage toll as necessary transactions and interface with a Financial Institution.

Advanced Traffic Management Systems

The center monitors, analyzes and stores traffic data and controls The system could be expanded ITS traffic conditions. The center exchanges highway-rail intersection as necessary information with rail operations centers. Its operations include regional traffic management, wide area alerts, and work zone management and coordination.

Advanced Traffic Management and Emergency Management Systems

Advanced Traffic Management Systems

The TMC operations include incident dispatch, coordination and The system could be expanded ITS communication, and multimodal coordination, including signal as necessary coordination along a particular transit route.

Maintenance and Construction Operations Advanced Traffic Management and Emergency Management Systems

The OCCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s responsibilities include traffic surveillance, commercial The system could be expanded ITS/Incident vehicle operations, emergency management, regional traffic as necessary Management management, environmental information management, work zone operations, etc.

Maintenance and Construction Operations Advanced Traffic Management, Advanced Public Transportation and Emergency Management Systems

The center operations include rail dispatch operations, vehicle The system could be expanded ITS tracking and scheduling systems and emergency management. as necessary

Maintenance and Construction Operations Advanced Public Transportation and Emergency Management Systems Maintenance and Construction Operations

B-6

Table B.1 Major Transportation Systems Management Projects/Operations in the NYMTC Planning Area (continued) Name MTA Metro-North Operations Center Systems

MTA Bus Command Center (BCC)

New York City Joint Transportation Management center (JTMC)

NYC Emergency Management Watch Command Center PANYNJ Airports Communication desk/operations center

TRANSCOM OpenReach Servers

Description

Planned Future Expansion

TSM Category

The center operations include rail dispatch operations, vehicle The system could be expanded ITS tracking and scheduling systems and emergency management. as necessary

An expanded, replacement Bus Command Center (BCC) building is being constructed across from the East New York Bus Depot in Brooklyn, NY. It will include a Console Operating Theater, capable of supporting both voice and data traffic between the BCC and individual buses and non-revenue vehicles. The BCC will also house the infrastructure to operate the new digital Bus Radio System. The center operations include traffic and transit network control and The system could be expanded monitoring, emergency management, emissions management, and as necessary maintenance and construction management.

This is the emergency operations center for the City of New York. The command center is responsible for coordinating responses between the various agencies operating within New York City during major incidents and events. This includes central operations for coordination and communication systems as well as facility-based ITS servers. The functional areas include traffic surveillance, incident management, traffic and transit information services, multi-modal coordination, transit center security, work zone management, etc.

Security and ITS

ITS/Incident Management

The system could be expanded Incident as necessary Management The system could be expanded ITS/Incident as necessary Management

ITS/Incident Management/Trave ler Information

Related NYMTC/Regional ITS Architecture Strategy Advanced Public Transportation and Emergency Management Systems Maintenance and Construction Operations Advanced Public Transportation Security & Communication System

Advanced Traffic Management, Advanced Public Transportation and Emergency Management Systems Maintenance and Construction Operations Emergency Management Systems

Advanced Traffic Management, Advanced Public Transportation and Emergency Management Systems Maintenance and Construction Operations Advanced Traffic Management, Public Transportation, Emergency Management and Traveler information Systems Maintenance and Construction Operations

B-7

Table B.2 Major Transportation Demand Management Projects in the NYMTC Planning Area Name

Description/Aim

TDM Category

Policy Transit Oriented Development

Various jurisdictions throughout the NYMTC region are Bike/ped enhancement promoting TOD initiatives to coordinate land use development and transportation, in order to foster growth around transit hubs such as rail and bus stations/stops. TOD programs at railroad stations aim to promote and coordinate TOD initiatives among its operating agencies, to work closely with local land use jurisdictions and to support initiatives at the regional scale to coordinate land use and transportation planning. These efforts are undertaken in conjunction with such efforts to facilitate approaches that address the â&#x20AC;&#x153;last mileâ&#x20AC;? transportation gap.

Complete Streets legislation

To "accommodate and facilitate safe travel by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists of all ages and abilities and allow pedestrian and motor traffic to easily coexist"

Bike/ped enhancement

Special mobility services: adapted multi-passenger vehicles provide demand-response transportation for passengers with special needs such as the disabled and the elderly. Services are offered within a designated radius from existing transit routes and can be used as a feeder service to accessible transit service.

Paratransit/Rideshare

Paratransit Access-A-Ride (NYC) Able Ride (Nassau County) Suffolk County Accessible Transportation (SCAT) Putnam Area Rapid Transit (PART) Paratransit Bee-Line Paratransit (Westchester County) TRIPS (Rockland County) HART (Huntington Area Rapid Transit) Paratransit Dial-a-Lift (Long Beach Transit) Rideshare and Ride Services Guaranteed Ride Home

Customers using certain connecting services are provided Employer program/Vehicle Sharing with a limited number of transportation back-up options in case they need to leave work outside of the operating hours of these connecting services

511 NY Rideshare

Outreach program to demonstrate the benefits of rideshares and promote alternative travel choices

Rideshare/Marketing

B-8

Table B.2 Major Transportation Demand Management Projects in the NYMTC Planning Area (continued) Name Vanpool and shuttle services

Description/Aim Region 11 TDM team coordinates with targeted employers to facilitate and establish rideshare services for employees Westchester Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SMART Commute program performs outreach to employers to facilitate ridesharing and the use of transit among employees.

Commuting Options Regional Commuter Choice Program (RCCP)

TDM Category Employer Program/Rideshare

Commuting Options A program that delivers benefits to travelers who use TDM Employer Program/Rideshare services in the NYMTC planning area.

Go Smart NYC Personalized Travel Neighborhood-based travel choice marketing program that Transit Enhancements and Marketing Choice Marketing educates residents about sustainable options and encourages their use through incentive structures Employer Education

Outreach to promote and educate employers about pre-tax commuter benefit options

Employer program

Bicycle Infrastructure Bicycle Locker Program

Bike/ped enhancement Provision of secure bicycle lockers at transit stations. Currently at select LIRR stations in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, administered locally and by NYSDOT. In addition, Stony Brook University, Suffolk State Office Building in Hauppauge, Town of Brookhaven, Riverhead Town Hall, and Rockville Centre have locally administered bicycle locker programs. MTA Metro North also currently has 8 stations with bike lockers. 2 of these stations are administered by the local municipality (Scarsdale & Pawling) and the remaining 6 are administered by MNRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Private Parking Operator at locations owned by the railroad. NYCDOT is also exploring secure bike parking facilities.

B-9

Table B.2 Major Transportation Demand Management Projects in the NYMTC Planning Area (continued) Name Bicycle Share

Description/Aim

TDM Category

The CitiBike bike share program currently has 10,000 bikes at Bike/ped enhancement 610 stations located in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens. The program was designed for convenient, quick trips that serve as alternatives to taxis or public transit. Planned expansions will increase the number of bikes and stations in all five boroughs. A bike share program in the City of New Rochelle is scheduled to begin in 2017. SoBi bike share in Long Beach City, Nassau County

B-10

Appendix C: Congested Corridor Screening Worksheet

C-1

Table C.1 Congested Corridors by County Final Screening

Peak (Main Direction)

Peak (Other Direction)

Total Volume

Consistency

Intensity All

Magnitude

Importance

Score

Henry Hudson Pkwy

Riverdale Ave

Henry Hudson Bridge

Freeway

1.47

1.48

28,723

27,468

56,191

0.96

1.01

0.51

77.76

I 678

I-278

Whitestone Bridge

Interstate

7.01

1.47

74,660

72,153

146,814

0.77

0.90

0.51

72.02

138th St

St. Ann's Ave

Interstate

4.46

1.70

60,767

47,732

108,499

0.48

0.85

0.56

68.65

White Plains Rd Westchester County Line Westchester County Line Claremont Pkwy Westchester County Line

Principal Arterial

1.63

2.02

29,162

35,642

64,804

0.62

0.99

0.45

0.8

66.40

Interstate

9.19

1.28

76,812

84,097

160,909

0.55

0.83

0.48

65.42

Interstate

3.35

1.54

65,049

57,701

122,751

0.16

0.77

0.53

60.57

Principal Arterial

1.68

1.12

22,542

18,182

40,724

0.13

0.85

0.55

0.8

60.21

Interstate

7.76

1.03

66,896

56,284

123,180

0.09

0.72

0.54

58.84

RANK

From

Facility Type

Corridor Name

Worst D/C

Hot Spot Scoring Parameters

Length

Daily Modeled Volume Functional Class

Limits

Bronx

3 4

Bruckner Expwy E Fordham Rd

Valentine Rd Alexander Hamilton Bridge Alexander Hamilton Bridge

I 95

Webster Ave

Fordham Rd

I 87

I-278

9 10

Bronx River Pkwy Dr Theodore Kazimiroff

Brooklyn

Southern Blvd

I-95

Freeway

2.31

0.99

56,945

62,042

118,986

0.00

0.80

0.48

56.53

Bronx River Pkwy

Moshulu Pkwy

Principal Arterial

0.51

1.00

17,615

24,031

41,646

0.00

0.95

0.42

0.8

54.70

Prospect Expressway

Bedford Ave

3.29

2.32

16,736

14,193

30,929

0.70

1.30

0.54

0.8

79.36

Meserole St

Jamaica Ave

4.57

1.85

24,415

24,188

48,603

0.84

1.26

0.50

0.8

78.72

4.33

1.35

74,576

67,114

141,690

1.04

1.09

0.53

0.8

78.51

1.51

1.39

13,289

10,436

23,724

0.96

1.19

0.56

0.6

78.35

0.85

1.03

46,632

52,659

99,290

0.96

0.95

0.47

74.24

2.50

2.42

14,200

14,607

28,807

0.74

1.26

0.49

0.6

73.77

3.73

2.30

9,657

9,000

18,657

0.65

1.22

0.52

0.6

72.72

Caton Ave

Bushwick Ave

Ocean Pkwy

Avenue P

Church Ave

37Th St

Dahill Rd

14th Ave

Verrazano Narrows Br

Richmond County Line

Belt Parkway

Empire Blvd

Utica Ave

Flatbush Ave

Broadway

Bedford +E50:F68Ave

Eastern Parkway

6 7

Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Interstate Minor Arterial Minor Arterial

C-2

Table C.1 Congested Corridors by County Final Screening (continued)

Length

Worst D/C

Peak (Main Direction)

Peak (Other Direction)

Total Volume

Consistency

Intensity All

Magnitude

Importance

Score

Hot Spot Scoring Parameters

Functional Class

From

Daily Modeled Volume

6.16

2.03

19,804

18,199

38,003

0.59

1.12

0.52

0.8

72.35

3.82

1.56

23,692

24,678

48,370

0.77

0.96

0.49

0.8

69.63

6.60

1.33

83,088

86,330

169,418

0.59

0.94

0.49

69.34

4.15

1.46

10,867

11,751

22,617

0.67

1.15

0.48

0.6

69.30

1.85

1.35

14,209

13,959

28,167

0.49

1.08

0.50

0.8

68.99

5.44

1.57

37,417

42,032

79,450

0.53

1.03

0.47

0.8

66.83

7.61

1.28

36,148

26,314

62,463

0.60

0.67

0.58

66.78

3.36

2.43

9,260

6,627

15,887

0.27

1.06

0.58

0.6

65.67

1.63

1.10

12,538

11,588

24,126

0.33

0.98

0.52

0.8

64.91

13.85

1.22

88,540

83,353

171,893

0.18

0.92

0.52

63.93

3.32

1.68

5,657

6,222

11,879

0.35

1.00

0.48

0.8

63.53

1.82

1.51

7,599

8,755

16,354

0.38

1.03

0.46

0.6

61.35

2.32

1.25

8,370

9,155

17,525

0.07

0.87

0.48

0.8

56.18

Freeway

0.58

0.86

39,662

36,232

75,894

0.00

0.70

0.52

55.98

Principal Arterial

0.90

0.92

68,617

87,012

155,629

0.00

0.85

0.44

0.8

53.21

Facility Type

Corridor Name

RANK

Limits

Brooklyn 8 9 10

/Flatbush Ave. Ext Fort Hamilton Pkwy Brooklyn Queens Expwy

Concord St 7th Ave Queens County Line Fort Hamilton Pkwy Eastern Parkway

Avenue N Prospect Park SW Gowanus Expressway

50Th St

Utica Ave

Atlantic Ave

Flatbush Ave

Conduit Blvd

Gowanus Expwy

Battery Tunnel

Clinton St

Church Ave

37th St

14 15 16 17

14Th Ave Flatlands Ave Shore Pkwy

Avenue J Cross Bay Blvd Rochester Ave Evergreen Ave

18th Ave Avenue D

Rockaway Parkway Verrazano Narrows Bridge

Fulton St

Flushing Ave

Myrtle Ave

Gates Ave

Bedford Ave

Brooklyn Br

Williamsburg Bridge - WB

Bridge Entrance

New York County Line New York County Line

Roebling St

Smith St Washington Ave

Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Interstate Minor Arterial Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Interstate Minor Arterial Principal Arterial Freeway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Principal Arterial

C-3

Table C.1 Congested Corridors by County Final Screening (continued)

Total Volume

Consistency

Intensity All

Magnitude

Importance

Score

2.02

1.37

0.44

99.20

8,972

0.39

1.35

1.00

0.6

93.66

23,620

0.36

1.05

1.00

0.8

88.48

1.07

12,763

0.60

0.87

1.00

0.8

87.85

0.83

1.44

30,146

61,596

91,742

2.10

1.18

0.33

0.6

84.72

1.30

1.38

69,699

69,515

139,214

1.78

0.73

0.50

82.62

1.20

1.44

15,389

0.15

0.87

1.00

0.8

81.03

1.39

1.11

15,613

0.09

0.83

1.00

0.8

79.22

0.67

2.63

44,472

29,487

73,959

0.91

1.05

0.60

0.8

79.04

1.90

1.25

69,641

68,167

137,809

1.21

0.92

0.51

78.86

0.73

0.87

65,935

0.00

0.86

1.00

0.8

78.38

0.85

1.15

11,259

0.47

0.55

1.00

0.8

77.81

0.52

0.84

9,797

0.00

0.77

1.00

0.8

76.31

9.93

1.48

80,166

86,476

166,642

0.98

1.05

0.48

0.8

74.76

Interstate

0.65

1.09

32,090

29,635

61,725

0.92

0.89

0.52

74.51

Freeway

9.49

1.27

84,022

92,015

176,037

0.89

0.98

0.48

74.43

0.35

2.69

8,094

13,692

21,786

0.43

1.19

0.37

0.8

64.81

1.35

1.06

5,777

4,785

10,562

0.01

0.63

0.55

0.8

52.53

Peak (Main Direction)

104,859

Worst D/C

Peak (Other Direction)

Hot Spot Scoring Parameters

58,723

Length

Functional Class

From

Daily Modeled Volume Facility Type

RANK

Corridor Name

Limits

0.33

1.48

46,136

1.31

3.16

8,972

1.24

2.71

0.91

Manhattan 1 2

Midtown Tunnel Exit

Tunnel Exit

Tunnel Entrance St

E 59Th St

Columbus Circle

York Ave

Canal St

Allen St

West St

65th Street Transverse

Central Park West

5th Ave

Spring St

West St

Greenwich St

I 95

George Washington Bridge

Alexander Hamilton Bridge

E 57th St

8th Ave

1st Ave

W 42nd St

10th Ave

2nd Ave

Queensboro Bridge Triborough Bridge (South) SB Brooklyn Bridge Approach United Nations Plaza

Kings County Line

1st Ave

Bronx County Line

Queens County Line

Gold St

BrooklynQueens Expwy

E 48th St

E 40th St

E 66Th St

5th Ave

2nd Ave

West St

W 14th St

Barclay St

New Jersey State Line Williamsburg Bridge

Tunnel Exit/Entrance

9 10 11 12

Lincoln Tunnel

FDR Dr

RFK Bridge

York Ave

59th St

66th St

Water St

Fulton St

Whitehall St

Interstate Minor Arterial Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Interstate Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Interstate Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Principal Arterial

Principal Arterial Principal Arterial

C-4

Table C.1 Congested Corridors by County Final Screening (continued)

Length

Worst D/C

Peak (Main Direction)

Peak (Other Direction)

Total Volume

Consistency

Intensity All

Magnitude

Importance

Score

Hot Spot Scoring Parameters

Functional Class

Daily Modeled Volume

2.67

2.47

22,192

22,212

44,404

0.67

1.23

0.50

0.8

75.33

2.08

1.54

16,263

17,845

34,108

0.81

1.08

0.48

0.8

72.61

Freeway

16.55

1.16

107,993

102,826

210,819

0.64

0.92

0.51

70.77

Freeway

1.57

1.07

71,013

72,142

143,155

0.36

0.89

0.50

65.10

Principal Arterial

10.35

1.52

26,995

21,647

48,641

0.39

0.84

0.55

0.8

63.80

Interstate

15.79

1.13

53,148

52,539

105,687

0.25

0.80

0.50

61.44

6.35

1.16

20,055

16,673

36,728

0.29

0.81

0.55

0.8

61.17

1.78

1.24

28,310

29,388

57,698

0.39

0.81

0.49

0.8

60.26

Freeway

16.74

1.16

62,409

59,952

122,361

0.03

0.83

0.51

59.10

NY 125

Principal Arterial

12.80

1.12

36,475

36,851

73,327

0.13

0.76

0.50

0.8

55.34

Jackson Ave

Principal Arterial

8.01

2.03

32,213

28,340

60,553

1.50

1.03

0.53

0.8

84.12

Lansing Ave

Freeway

4.37

1.25

103,664

108,589

212,253

1.23

1.06

0.49

81.97

Liberty Ave

Queen Blvd

5.78

1.94

41,663

19,516

61,179

0.88

0.97

0.68

0.8

80.18

S Conduit Ave

Farmers Blvd Whitehall Terrace

Principal Arterial Freeway

6.59

1.17

40,887

0.11

0.72

1.00

79.55

Interstate

1.90

1.32

26,116

27,985

54,101

0.88

1.03

0.48

75.55

Principal Arterial

5.37

1.67

59,637

59,389

119,025

1.04

1.00

0.50

0.8

75.25

From

Shelter Rock Rd S Franklin St Queens County Line

Queens County Line

Facility Type

Corridor Name

RANK

Limits

Nassau 1

Northern Blvd

Front St

3 4 5 6 7

Southern State Pkwy Meadowbrook State Pkwy Hempstead Tpke Long Island Expwy Jamaica Ave

Peninsula Blvd

Northern State Pkwy

Sunrise Hwy

Queens 1

Queens Plaza S

Southern Pkwy

Woodhaven Blvd

Nassau Expwy

Clearview Expwy

Interborough Pkwy

Chester St

Queens County Line Queens County Line

Suffolk County Line Zeckendorf Blvd Wantagh State Pkwy Suffolk County Line

25th St

Tulip Ave

NY 25

Southern State Pkwy Queens County Line Queens County Line Vernon Blvd Cross Bay Blvd

NY 25 Jackie Robinson Parkway

Fulton St Suffolk County Line

Jamaica Ave

Principal Arterial Principal Arterial

C-5

Table C.1 Congested Corridors by County Final Screening (continued)

From

Length

Worst D/C

Peak (Main Direction)

Peak (Other Direction)

Total Volume

Consistency

Intensity All

Magnitude

Importance

Score

Hot Spot Scoring Parameters

Functional Class

Daily Modeled Volume Facility Type

Corridor Name

RANK

Limits

Belt Parkway

Grand Central Parkway

Interstate

3.97

1.36

102,173

101,589

203,763

0.83

0.98

0.50

74.63

Tunnel Entrance

Tunnel Exit

Interstate

14.20

1.30

88,750

62,901

151,651

0.66

0.88

0.59

73.42

Southern Parkway

Southern State Parkway

Freeway

4.05

1.07

89,369

88,280

177,649

0.50

0.90

0.50

67.49

Nassau County Line

RFK Bridge

Freeway

15.19

1.56

73,525

72,527

146,052

0.59

0.81

0.50

66.69

Kings County Line

Gran Central Parkway

Interstate

3.82

1.27

74,263

63,773

138,036

0.22

0.82

0.54

63.00

Springfield Ln

Rockaway Blvd

Major Collector

0.87

1.08

7,487

6,532

14,019

0.09

0.82

0.53

0.4

51.86

New Hempstead Rd

I-287/I-87

Freeway

3.67

0.88

41,332

45,531

86,863

0.00

0.73

0.48

54.77

NY 17

Westchester County Line

Interstate

3.28

0.75

73,841

78,612

152,453

0.00

0.61

0.48

52.05

New Jersey State Line New Jersey State Line

Kings County Line Pearl Harbor Mem Expwy

Interstate

8.78

1.34

47,635

57,341

104,976

0.46

0.78

0.45

61.86

Freeway

1.51

2.61

45,432

40,676

86,108

0.03

0.90

0.53

61.64

Queens 7 8 9 10 11 12

Van Wyck Expwy Queens Midtown Tunnel - EB Laurelton Pkwy Grand Central Pkwy Brooklyn Queens Expwy 14Th Ave

Rockland 1 2

Palisades Interstate Pkwy Tappan Zee Bridge EB

Staten Island 1

I 278

State Hwy 440

C-6

Table C.1 Congested Corridors by County Final Screening (continued) Daily Modeled Volume Peak (Main Direction)

Peak (Other Direction)

Total Volume

Consistency

Intensity All

Magnitude

Importance

33,179

31,235

64,414

0.87

1.13

0.52

0.8

0.39

1.36

9,980

13,670

23,650

1.00

1.33

0.42

0.4

5.36

1.05

59,337

57,840

117,177

0.68

0.84

0.51

3.00

1.23

20,823

18,770

39,593

0.47

0.89

0.53

0.8

1.18

1.46

27,625

25,909

53,534

0.33

1.06

0.52

0.6

Interstate

29.1 6

1.18

61,067

57,222

118,289

0.25

0.78

0.52

61.6 1

5th Ave

Freeway

9.63

1.14

81,880

81,198

163,078

0.09

0.86

0.50

60.6 2

Edgewood Ave

Stony Brook Rd

Minor Arterial

3.01

1.15

13,899

15,083

28,982

0.36

0.96

0.48

0.6

60.0 2

Nassau County Line

William Floyd Pkwy

Freeway

18.0 2

1.31

49,915

47,975

97,890

0.12

0.78

0.51

59.1 5

Northern State Parkway

Nesconset Highway

Principal Arterial

2.06

1.12

37,168

53,325

90,493

0.48

0.85

0.41

0.8

59.0 1

Nassau County Line

Sunken Meadow State Parkway

Freeway

9.83

1.03

36,886

40,609

77,496

0.01

0.83

0.48

57.2 6

7.45

1.07

31,947

35,605

67,552

0.26

0.69

0.47

0.8

6.49

1.43

28,323

32,511

60,834

0.09

0.71

0.47

0.8

Score

Worst D/C 1.80

Functional Class

3.95

From

Facility Type

Length

Hot Spot Scoring Parameters

Corridor Name

RANK

Limits

Suffolk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Main St

Hauppauge Rd

St. Johnland Rd

New Hwy

Adams Ave

Parkway Drive N

NY 27

Jericho Turnpike

Wheeler Rd

Suffolk Ave

Jericho Turnpike

Deforest Rd N

Nassau County Line

William Floyd Pkwy

Nassau County Line

Sagtikos State Pkwy Joshuas Path Deer Park Rd Long Island Expwy Southern State Pkwy N Country Rd Sunrise Hwy Veterans Memorial Hwy Northern State Pkwy Nescons et Hwy Jericho Tpke

Veterans Memorial Highway Northern State Parkway

Mark Tree Rd Echo Ave

Principal Arterial Major Collector Freeway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial

Principal Arterial Principal Arterial

76.4 2 73.1 6 69.0 9 65.0 0 63.6 7

54.5 4 52.1 6

C-7

Table C.1 Congested Corridors by County Final Screening (continued)

Length

Worst D/C

Peak (Main Direction)

Peak (Other Direction)

Total Volume

Consistency

Intensity All

Magnitude

Importance

Score

Hot Spot Scoring Parameters

Functional Class

From

Daily Modeled Volume

Principal Arterial

0.43

1.13

12,886

15,446

28,333

0.95

1.06

0.45

0.8

73.07

Freeway

14.50

1.08

53,439

47,572

101,010

0.24

0.86

0.53

63.87

0.54

1.07

22,011

15,882

37,892

0.70

0.67

0.58

0.6

62.39

0.35

1.31

10,911

23,188

34,099

0.95

0.96

0.32

0.6

61.61

Freeway

2.32

1.36

58,017

65,097

123,114

0.14

0.86

0.47

59.93

Minor Arterial

0.28

1.08

9,469

10,050

19,519

0.34

0.96

0.49

0.6

59.88

Interstate

12.07

1.04

66,359

75,486

141,844

0.07

0.83

0.47

57.69

Principal Arterial

0.67

0.95

10,692

12,162

22,854

0.00

0.78

0.47

0.8

52.50

Facility Type

RANK

Corridor Name

Limits

Westchester Mount Vernon Ave Hutchinson River Pkwy

1 2 3

Pelhamdale Ave

New Rochelle Rd

Roberts Ave

I 95

Bronx County Line

Bronx County Line Meadowbrook Pl Bronx County Line

Connecticut State Line New Rochelle Rd Hutchinson River Pkwy Sprain Brook Pkwy Saw Mill River Rd Connecticut State Line

McLean Ave

Lawton St

California Rd

Midland Ave

Note:

W Lincoln Ave

Eastchester Rd

Bronx River Pkwy

Bronx River Rd

Minor Arterial Minor Arterial

The highlighted numbers in the Rank column represent the 20 most congested corridors in the region. Congested locations/areas where rank was not calculated.

Length

D/C

15%

25%

Volume

Weight, % 45%

15%

C-8