May 1996
 

 
Philip vanderWilden
 
William Lyons
Project Manager
 
Fred Salvucci
 
Tilly Chang
 

This report is the fifth in a series of Enhanced Planning Reviews (EPRs) of major metropolitan areas produced for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. An earlier series of nine independent planning reviews of major metropolitan areas was published by the Volpe Center for the FHWA and FTA in 1994.

William Lyons is the Volpe Center Project Manager for the EPRs. Philip vanderWilden was the lead author and analyst for this report. Other contributors included Frederick Salvucci and Tilly Chang, Center for Transportation Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, under contract to the Volpe Center.

Overall guidance for the EPRs, including production of this report, was provided by the Program Manager, Deborah Burns, and Sam Zimmerman, Director, both from the Office of Planning Operations, FTA; and Sheldon Edner and Barna Juhasz, Chief, both from the Metropolitan Planning Division, FHWA.

The federal review team--consisting of staff from FTA Headquarters and Region II Offices; FHWA Headquarters, Region 1, the New York and New Jersey Divisions; Federal Railroad Administration Headquarters; and the Volpe Center--participated in all aspects of the EPR, including reviewing drafts of this report.

A draft of the Overview Report was provided to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and other participating major transportation agencies in the metropolitan area for review and comment. The Final Report adds background information for the observations and recommendations in the Overview Report and is written for public distribution. The assistance of local agency staff throughout the EPR is gratefully acknowledged. The Final Report, which was not reviewed in its entirety by the local agencies, is the responsibility of the federal agencies. Participating federal review team members are listed in the Introduction, and state, regional, and local staff are listed in Appendix B.

Copies of the other reports can be requested from: Federal Transit Administration, Metropolitan Planning Division, fax (202) 493-2478 or Federal Highway Administration, Metropolitan Planning Division, fax (202) 366-7660.

Appendix A Membership and Voting, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council . . 37

Appendix B Local Participants in the EPR of the New York City Metropolitan Area . . . . 38

Appendix C Agenda for the EPR Site Visit to the New York/Northern New Jersey
Metropolitan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Appendix D List of Documents Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

ADA . . . . . .Americans with Disabilities Act
ARC . . . . . .Access to the Region's Core
CAAA . . . .Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
CBD . . . . . .Central Business District
CMS . . . . . .Congestion Management System
CMAQ . . . .Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
CO . . . . . .Carbon Monoxide
ECO . . . . . .Employee Commute Option
EPR . . . . . .Enhanced Planning Review
FHWA . . . .Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation
FTA . . . . . .Federal Transit Administration, US Department of Transportation
FWG . . . . . .Forecast Working Group
HOV . . . . . .High Occupancy Vehicle
IMS . . . . . .Intermodal Management System
ISTEA . . . .Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITS . . . . . .Intelligent Transportation Systems
IVHS . . . . . .Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems
LOS . . . . . .Level of Service
MHSTCC . . . .Mid-Hudson South Transportation Coordinating Committee
MIS . . . . . .Major Investment Studies
MOU . . . . . .Memorandum of Understanding
MPO . . . . . .Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTA . . . . . .Metropolitan Transportation Authority
MTA LIB . . . .Metropolitan Transportation Authority Long Island Bus
MTA LIRR . . . .Metropolitan Transportation Authority Long Island Rail Road
MTA MNR . . . .Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Railroad
MTA NYCT . . . .Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit
MTA SIR . . . .Metropolitan Transportation Authority Staten Island Railroad
NEA . . . . . .National Emphasis Areas
NHS . . . . . .National Highway System
NJDEPE . . . .New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection & Energy
NJDOT . . . .New Jersey Department of Transportation
NJTPA . . . .North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
NJ Transit . . . .New Jersey Transit Corporation
N/STCC . . . .Nassau/ Suffolk Transportation Coordinating Committee
NYCDOT . . . .New York City Department of Transportation
NYCTCC . . . .New York City Transportation Coordinating Committee
NYMTC . . . .New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (or Council)
NYSDEC . . . .New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOT . . . .New York State Department of Transportation
PANYNJ . . . .Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
PATH . . . . . .Port Authority Trans-Hudson
PCAC . . . . . .Public Citizen's Advisory Committee
PFAC . . . . . .Program, Administration and Finance Committee
RPPM . . . . . .Regional Planning Program Manager
RTP . . . . . .Regional Transportation Plan
SBP . . . . . .Strategic Business Plan
SCT . . . . . .Suffolk County Transit
SIP . . . . . .State Implementation Plan
STIP . . . . . .State Transportation Improvement Program
STP . . . . . .Surface Transportation Program
TAC . . . . . .Technical Advisory Committee
TCC . . . . . .Transportation Coordinating Committee
TIP . . . . . .Transportation Improvement Plan
TCM . . . . . .Transportation Control Measure
TDM . . . . . .Transportation Demand Management
TRANSCOM . . . .Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee
US DOT . . . .United States Department of Transportation
US EPA . . . .United States Environmental Protection Agency
UPWP . . . .Unified Planning Work Program
VMT . . . . . .Vehicle Miles Traveled
Volpe Center . . . .John A. Volpe Transportation Systems Center, Research and Special

Programs Administration, US Department of Transportation

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have initiated a series of joint Enhanced Planning Reviews (EPRs) to assess the impact of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) on the planning processes conducted by the transportation agencies serving metropolitan areas. The EPRs are also intended to determine the effects of planning on transportation investment processes. The information collected in the EPRs is intended to be of assistance to individual metropolitan areas in their continuing efforts to improve transportation planning practice, and to federal agencies in formulating policy and identifying technical assistance needs among agencies engaged in metropolitan planning.

A joint EPR for the New York/Northern New Jersey metropolitan area included a federal site visit from September 12 through September 19, 1995. This final report focuses on issues that were addressed as part of the EPR regarding the transportation planning processes in the New York City metropolitan area. A final report containing observations regarding the transportation planning processes in Northern New Jersey is provided under a separate cover. At the conclusion of the site visit, the federal review team presented preliminary observations and recommendations to the local agencies taking part in the review. The team then formulated several additional observations as a result of the further review of documents and notes. These observations were incorporated into a draft Overview Report which was distributed for review and comments to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the area, and other local participants in the EPR. The Overview Report formed the basis for this Final Report, which describes the EPR in greater depth and is intended for public distribution.

The following is the summary conclusion and a complete set of the observations and recommendations presented in the Overview Report. The section where the observations and recommendations are discussed in context are noted in parentheses.

The EPR of the New York City area metropolitan transportation planning process reveals that progress is clearly being made with respect to meeting a number of the challenges set forth in ISTEA. This includes noteworthy efforts to enhance public outreach, development of project prioritization criteria, an emphasis on non-motorized transportation, and a high level of commitment from all staff. However, the EPR left an overall impression of organizational fragmentation. This limits NYMTC's ability to function as an effective and unified body for regional decision making and the realization of regional priorities.

A significant weakness in the decision-making process is that the region seems to lack a global competition viewpoint. The connection between infrastructure investment and economic well-being seems to have been lost. The members of NYMTC, and in particular the local elected officials, need to be actively involved at all levels in order to move from a planning process which has been project-driven by historic project "pipelines" and subregional interests toward a process which is problem-solution oriented, driven by consensus and cooperative decision making through the planning process and the implementation of the products of that process.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 significantly changed the law governing metropolitan transportation planning. In response to the changes introduced by ISTEA, FHWA and FTA issued revised planning regulations on October 28, 1993, setting new requirements for the transportation planning processes. The requirements are presented in 23 CFR Part 450 and 49 CFR Part 613, Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Final Rule. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) also imposed rigorous new transportation planning requirements in metropolitan areas, particularly those that are designated nonattainment or maintenance areas for air quality.

In support of the implementation of the revised regulations, FHWA and FTA jointly established a schedule of EPRs. The EPRs are intended to determine the impact of planning on transportation investment processes. The EPRs also provide a technical assessment of the transportation planning and programming processes, including consideration of the six focal points identified by the FHWA and FTA Administrators for certification. The six focal points are: Financial Constraint and Financial Planning; Major Investment Studies; Congestion Management Systems; the Planning Process and Links to the Conformity Requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; the Public Involvement Process; and the ISTEA Fifteen Planning Factors.¹ Of equal importance, EPRs will provide a forum for dialogue and the exchange of information on perspectives and concerns related to ISTEA between FTA and FHWA headquarters and field staff, and state and local officials responsible for metropolitan area transportation planning.

Additionally, EPRs will provide information for future long-term federal policy-making, including possible legislative and regulatory changes; identify national issues and trends; and document national case studies of best professional practice. This information will also be used to help identify how future federal technical assistance programs can best assist MPOs and other planning agencies in carrying out the requirements of ISTEA. Finally, EPRs are intended to support progress toward meeting ISTEA requirements.

The EPR has four parts: a review of planning documents, a site visit to the area, a summary draft Overview Report, and the issuance of this Final Report. At the conclusion of the site visit, the federal agency participants in the EPR presented preliminary observations and recommendations to the local agencies taking part in the review. The team then formulated several additional observations as a result of the further review of documents and notes. These observations were incorporated into a draft Overview Report distributed to the MPO and other local participants in the EPR for review and comment. The Overview Report formed the basis for this Final Report, which describes the EPR in greater depth and is intended for public distribution.

This report presents the results of an EPR conducted jointly by FHWA and FTA in the New York/Northern New Jersey metropolitan area. This Final Report focuses on issues that were addressed as part of the EPR regarding the transportation planning processes in the New York City metropolitan area. A Final Report containing observations regarding the transportation planning processes in Northern New Jersey is provided under a separate cover. This report considers the regional transportation planning process as it existed at the time of the site visit as well as future trends. The review team acknowledges that this is an evolving process.

A federal review team consisting of FHWA, FTA and FRA headquarters staff, FHWA and FTA regional staff, FHWA division staff, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regional staff, and US DOT/Volpe Center staff conducted the site visit on September 12 through September 19, 1995. The federal team consisted of:

Barna Juhasz, Office of Planning
Al Alonzi, Region 1
Joe Rich, New York Division
Lloyd Jacobs, New Jersey Division

John Walsh, Region II
Jeff Butensky, Region II
Andrew Otis, Region II

William Lyons, Project Manager
Philip vanderWilden
Fred Salvucci, MIT

Sam Zimmerman, Office of Environment and Planning
Brian Sterman, Region II
Rob Ritter, Region II
Anthony Carr, Region II
Carmen Orta, Region II

Joel Palley, Office of Planning

Research assistance was provided by Tilly Chang of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Local participants in the site visit included staff from the NYMTC, the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA), NYSDOT, New Jersey DOT (NJDOT), Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). During the New York site visit, the review team met with representatives of locally elected officials who sit on various NYMTC voting boards. A public session was held in New York to receive comments from the public regarding the local planning process.

A list of MPO policy board members, participants in the EPR site visit, and the agenda for the site visit are provided in Appendices A, B, and C of this report. A list of the documents reviewed as part of the EPR is provided in Appendix D.

The NYMTC planning area includes the City of New York (including the counties of Kings, Queens, New York, Bronx, and Richmond), the counties of Nassau and Suffolk (which make up Long Island), and the counties Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester (which comprise the Mid-Hudson South area). The population of NYMTC region is currently estimated at 11 million residents, with New York City accounting for 62% or 7.3 million of that total. Employment in the NYMTC region is 6.2 million jobs, with New York City accounting for 66% or 4.1 million of that total. A map of the NYMTC area is provided at the end of this section.

As the MPO for the New York metropolitan area, NYMTC is responsible for the coordination of transportation planning between the three transportation coordinating committees (TCC): New York City TCC (NYCTCC), Nassau- Suffolk TCC (N/S TCC), and Mid-Hudson South TCC (MHSTCC). NYMTC is also responsible for the coordination of planning activities with neighboring regional MPOs in Northern New Jersey and Connecticut. These activities include air quality/transportation planning requirements set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA) designation of the tri-state metropolitan area as an Ozone Severe and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Moderate non-attainment area.

Congestion and air quality concerns are major issues for the New York City metropolitan area and local travel characteristics indicate that these will continue to be pressing concerns in the future. Work trips are projected to increase regionwide by 21% from 5.24 million in 1990 to 6.34 million by 2015. From 1980 through 1990, the number of drive-alone trips increased 35%. Trucks move 90% of freight hauled within the region, while rail handles only a small portion of the freight market. There has been a general decline in the transit mode share. From 1980 to 1990, while the absolute number of workers using public transit increased by 8%, the transit mode share slowly decreased. Taxi services continue to provide for a significant share of the 591 million total trips per year, accounting for 12% of citywide and 30% of intra-Manhattan trips.

The NYMTC region is expected to continue to experience growth in population, employment, and trip making through the year 2015. Population is projected to increase between 3% and 6%. Suburbanization of residential and employment development since the 1950s in the NYMTC region has had a significant impact on travel patterns and travel demand. New York City's share of the population declined from 82% in 1950 to 62% by 1990. The City's share of total employment in the region decreased from 88% to 63% during the same time period. While the total number of jobs in New York City remained relatively constant from 1950 through 1990 (growing by 1.8%), the Long Island and Mid-Hudson areas experienced job growth of 402% and 157% respectively.

The demand for travel, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and vehicle hours of delay increased significantly from 1970 through 1990. Among the primary causes cited for those increases are:

• An increase in population in Queens and Staten Island, which are not served by rapid transit.
• A growing reverse commute segment.
• An increase in number of households and residential labor force.
• An increase in auto availability and registration.
• A general decrease in transit ridership due to a decline in service quality, fare increases, and population/employment shifts causing suburb-to-suburb commutes.

Travel demand and delay are forecast to continue to increase from the period of 1990 through 2015. These increases will result from a number of different trends including:

• The traditional commute into Manhattan's Central Business District (CBD) from the outer New York City Boroughs will continue to remain strong, with a very significant increase in work trips from Brooklyn and New Jersey.
• Intra-county commuter travel, reverse commuter travel from New York City to the suburbs, and trips to the CBD will continuously increase.
• Small, yet statistically significant, increases are forecasted to occur for trips throughout the region and for trips furthest away from the region to the CBD.
• Non-traditional work trips will continue to increase.
• All travel flows in the region will increase.

The regional transportation system can be broken down into the three TCC subregions of New York City, Long Island, and Mid-Hudson.

Highways and Bridges: There are 19,490 lane miles of streets and highways in NYC, consisting of 1,249 lane miles of limited access roads, 7,296 lane miles of primary and secondary routes and 10,945 lane miles of local streets. In 1991, according to NYSDOT and NYCDOT, almost 50% of these lane miles were deficient. Approximately 56% of the local bridges, which accounted for nearly 4 million motor vehicle crossings in 1991, were also considered deficient.

Transit: The MTA New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) operates 5,942 subway cars and 714 track miles in its system. All of the subway track is in good repair, while 57% of structures and 89% of tunnels are in good repair. MTA NYCT also operate and maintain a fleet of 3,668 buses.

Other Transit: PATH (Port Authority Trans-Hudson), which is operated by the PANYNJ, provides essential transit service via three interstate rapid rail transit lines from New Jersey into Manhattan with an annual ridership of 56 million passengers. The privately franchised bus system includes 1,166 vehicles. Nine ferry boats and four terminals provide ferry boat service between New Jersey and Manhattan and Staten Island and Manhattan.

Port: The PANYNJ operates marine terminals and one passenger terminal (in Manhattan), three marine terminals (two in Brooklyn and one on Staten Island), and one container terminal (in Brooklyn).

Airport: John F. Kennedy and LaGuardia airports are the main airports serving the NYMTC region. These airports handle over 54 million passengers per year and nearly 1.5 million tons of cargo annually with a value of $60 billion.

Highways and Bridges: There are 26,292 lane miles of streets and highways on Long Island, 56% of those miles are in Suffolk County. There are a total of 624 bridges on Long Island, 293 in Nassau and 331 in Suffolk County. In 1991, 57% of the Nassau County Bridges and 42% of the Suffolk County bridges were considered deficient.

Transit: The MTA Long Island Rail Road (MTA LIRR) is the most extensive commuter railroad in the country, carry approximately 253,000 passenger trips on more than 730 trains daily. LIRR operates 1,200 electric and diesel coaches and diesel locomotives, 595 track miles, and 134 stations. Bus service is provided by two operators in both Nassau and Suffolk Counties: Nassau- MTA Long Island Bus (MTA LIB) and the City of Long Beach; Suffolk- Suffolk County Transit (SCT) and the Town of Huntington.

Airport: Long Island has two regional airports: Long Island Republic and MacArthur.

Highways and Bridges: There are 9,574 lane miles of streets and highways in the Mid-Hudson South region, 67% in Westchester County, 24% in Rockland County, and 8% in Putnam County. There are a total of 573 state highway and 329 non-state highway bridges in the Mid-Hudson region; in 1991, 16% of state bridges and 43% of non-state bridges were considered deficient.

Transit: The MTA Metro-North Rail Road, the third largest commuter railroad in the country, carries approximately 200,000 passengers on the average work day. Its service territory covers two boroughs of New York City, five suburban counties in New York, and two in Connecticut. Metro-North operates 816 rail cars and locomotives, 744 track miles, 118 passenger stations, bridges, tunnels, and viaducts. Bus service is provided in each county by separate providers: Westchester (the Bee Line Transit Network and Westchester County Paratransit), Rockland (Transport of Rockland and Transportation Resources Intra-City for Physically Handicapped & Senior Citizens), and Putnam (Putnam Area Rapid Transit and Putnam Area Specialized Transit).

Airport: The Mid-Hudson South region has one primary regional Airport: Westchester Airport.

Source: NYMTC, Critical Issues Critical Choices, A Mobility Plan for the New York Region Through the Year 2015, March 1994.

In June of 1982, three TCCs--from the Mid-Hudson South, New York City, and Nassau/Suffolk areas--agreed to join together to form the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC or Council) and, acting through the Council, to constitute the federally required MPO for the metropolitan area. The Council is composed of the following voting and non-voting (advisory) members:

Voting Members: Non-Voting Members:

* City of New York (representing the Mayor) * FHWA

- Chairman, NYC Planning Commission (1) * FTA

- Commissioner, NYC Department of Transportation (1) * US EPA

* County Executives from: * NYSDEC

- Nassau (1) * PANYNJ

- Putnam (1) * NJ Transit

- Suffolk (1) * NJTPA

- Westchester (1)

* Chairman of Legislators from Rockland County (1)

* Chairman, MTA (1)

* Commissioner, NYSDOT (1).

The Commissioner of NYSDOT serves as the permanent Co-Chairperson of the Council with functional responsibility for the MPO's operations. The rotating Council Co-Chairperson is elected each year from among the three TCCs. All actions taken by the TCCs and by the Council require consensus which is defined as "unanimity of affected parties" which is defined by the Co-Chairpersons on a case-by-case basis.

The voting committee membership of the three TCCs include the following members as well as advisory members from the members cited above under the Council non-voting members list:

New York City TCC: Mid-Hudson South TCC:
* City of New York (representing Mayor): * Westchester County Executive
- Chairman, NYC Planning Commission * Putnam County Executive
- Commissioner, NYC DOT * Chairman of Legislators, Rockland County
* Chairman, MTA * Chairman, MTA

* Region 11 Director, NYSDOT * Region 8 Director, NYSDOT
* NYS Thruway Authority Representative

Nassau-Suffolk TCC:
* Nassau County Executive
* Suffolk County Executive
* Chairman, MTA
* Region 10 Director, NYSDOT

Local elected officials, who are the actual designees to the Council and the TCC policy boards, are not actively involved in the transportation planning process as evidenced by their lack of participation at all levels. Local elected officials' voting places are typically filled by mid-level staff designees from their respective offices or county transportation agencies. Many of the same mid-level staff who serve on the TCC's policy boards and the Council in place of elected officials also comprise the membership of NYMTC's Program, Finance and Administration Committee (PFAC), which is responsible for oversight of day to day operations of the MPO.

The involvement of many of the same individuals at the Council, TCC policy board, and PFAC levels and the lack of direct involvement on the part of elected officials has helped to create the impression that the planning process is controlled by a few transportation professionals from NYSDOT, MTA, and local DOTs at all levels. This impression was expressed by NYMTC central staff, some implementing agencies, and the general public. Members of the general public further expressed that the current policy of convening the full Council only once per year, with little or no participation on the part of local elected officials, removes the process from the public realm and denies them access to public officials in the transportation planning process. Throughout the site visit, participants from various implementing agencies frequently cited their concern that until elected officials are directly involved, it will not be possible to build consensus for regional needs and priorities that will take precedent over subregional and implementing agency parochial interests.

The overlapping membership of implementing agencies' representatives and elected officials on the TCCs' policy boards and the Council provides a mechanism to debate and discuss area-wide perspectives. However, the lack of participation of elected officials and senior agency staff at the Council level and the infrequency of meetings of the Council suggests that there is little priority given to area-wide, coordinated planning. This has effectively diminished the Council's regional coordinating role in the planning process and has resulted in what appears to be three independent processes in the subregional TCCs.

While the TCC staff are formally NYMTC staff, they are housed in the NYSDOT regional offices whose boundaries correspond to those of each TCC and work most closely with the local, county, and implementing agencies within their local jurisdictions. The Council has failed to establish clear roles for the NYMTC central staff or for the subregional TCC staff. This failure has generated an unclear relationship between the central and subregional staffs and organizational fragmentation where, lacking central direction, NYMTC central staff and subregional TCC staff often act independently from one another.

At present, NYMTC central staff provides centralized services to the TCCs. The NYMTC central staff is headed by a Staff Director who is appointed by the Council from a list provided by the Commissioner of NYSDOT. The central staff is comprised of 64 staff positions including the Director's Office (7), an Administrative Group (18), a Planning Group (18), and a Technical Group (21). The Planning Group is responsible for directing the development of the Council's major products including the Plan, the TIP, and the UPWP. The Planning Group also coordinates the activities of the subregions and other Council affiliates to prepare these products. The Technical Group is responsible for data management and analytical techniques including modeling and special transportation projects. The Administrative Group provides the financial, administrative, and information management support services to the agency members of the Council.

Development of major products of the planning process are coordinated between the central staff and subregional TCC staff as follows:

• Transportation Plan: In preparation of the regionwide transportation plan, NYMTC central staff develops and annually reviews the areawide transportation goals and objectives that provide guidance to its constituent TCCs. Each TCC develops and reviews and updates as necessary, a TCC Transportation Plan, consisting of long-range and short-range elements, including Transportation Systems Management components. Upon receipt of the TCC Transportation Plans, the central staff examines them with respect to its goals and objectives; reconciles by consensus any differences, inconsistencies, or conflicts as described earlier; and then integrate those plans into the areawide plan.
• TIP: Each TCC develops and updates, annually, a TCC TIP in cooperation with local officials and other transportation planning agencies. The TIP consists of improvements recommended in the short-range and long-range components of the TCC's Plan. Upon receipt of the TCC Transportation Plans, central staff annually incorporates the TCC TIPs into the areawide TIP, including regional projects recommended by the PFAC. Additions, deletions, or any other changes to TCC TIPs are not made by the Council except by consensus of its members.
• UPWP: As specified in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing the MPO, the UPWP is comprised of five major work elements including: (1) Central staff work elements; (2) TCC staff work elements; (3) Subregional pass-through; (4) Transit operators planning program; and (5) Special studies. A recent change in the UPWP process, whereby subregional TCC UPWPs will require the approval only of the NYSDOT Regional Planning Program Manager (RPPM) without oversight from the NYMTC central staff, indicates increasing fragmentation of a coordinated regional approach to transportation planning.

The subregional program and TCC staff elements in NYMTC's UPWP are intended to provide for a coordinated, consistent approach to transportation planning among the various jurisdictions in the New York metropolitan area, and to provide guidance on changing federal requirements. Toward that end, the subregional staff at each TCC have made significant progress towards implementing many of the challenges established by ISTEA including noteworthy progress in the development and adoption of public participation procedures and the establishment of project prioritization criteria to reflect the ISTEA fifteen factors. However, development of separate Plan, TIP, and UPWP components by each of the TCCs raises questions as to whether regional priorities developed at the NYMTC Council level have a significant impact on the planning process at the TCC level.

NYMTC's current host agency relationship under NYSDOT has also had implications for intra-regional coordination. As the host agency, NYSDOT provides prefinancing for all NYMTC central and subregional staff prior to reimbursement, and all NYMTC staff are actually employees of NYSDOT. At the time of the site visit, an on-going general spending freeze at NYSDOT also affected NYMTC's (as NYSDOT employees) ability to continue to fund their interim and "best practices" model development as well as their ability to fill vacant positions at the Central Staff and TCC subregional level. In both cases, the majority of funding for model development and the vacant planning positions is from federal planning funds which require a non-federal match of approximately 20%. This situation limits both the NYMTC central and subregional TCC staff's capacity to provide technical support and program management functions for the regional planning process.

On a region-wide basis (considering the NYMTC and North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) planning areas), there is currently no formal mechanism for coordinated regional decision making through which to address regional transportation concerns including congestion, goods movement, and air quality. Interjurisdictional planning and regional decision making have been identified as critical issues in NYMTC's 2015 Plan. In lieu of a formal mechanism, current efforts led by various agencies have attempted to address these issues on an ad-hoc basis. These approaches include the Bi-State Forum, the Access to the Region's Core (ARC) study, PANYNJ and NJTPA Freight Studies, some Major Investment Studies (MIS), and on-going coordination between NJ Transit and the MTA (i.e., Penn Station).

NYMTC's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for 2015, adopted on March 24, 1994, represents the first post-ISTEA plan update. The 2015 RTP represents significant progress towards providing a regional framework for transportation decision making. ISTEA's impact on the development of the RTP is reflected in a movement towards a region-wide, corridor, and sub-area problem-solving approach. The foundation of the RTP is the identification of eight critical regional issues and corresponding goals and objectives for each issue as follows:

4. Airport Access- Goal: To provide better access to the region's airports by developing a modally balanced plan for airport-bound people and for the transport of air freight.

The RTP provides details of demographic changes and the growth in travel which occurred during the past 40 years and are projected to occur through 2015 and how these changes have and will affect the critical issues identified in the RTP. Corridor profiles are provided for planning and project selection guidance in the future and plans call for the Council and TCCs to establish priorities for programming improvements. The RTP then presents a financially constrained plan and two "needs" components based on the availability of different levels of funding. The projected impact on congestion and VMT of the differing levels of investment include:

Despite progress towards a region-wide approach to capital investments and strategies as presented in the RTP, the present planning processes still appears to be primarily "bottom-up project-driven" and focused on "keeping the pipeline moving" rather than a "top-down plan-driven" approach. Subregional TIPs are developed at the TCC level by combining each implementing agency's proposed program and then combining them at NYMTC central staff level into a regional TIP. This is in contrast to a regional TIP developed with extensive involvement of the NYMTC Council ensuring a region-wide and system-wide perspective. The resulting "bottom-up project-driven" process is evidenced by:

There is a tendency to minimize the importance of a "top-down plan-driven" process because so much of plans and programs contained in the TIP are directed to recapitalization of existing resources. Nonetheless, because of the sizable sum of resources required to meet the Level I- State of Good Repair (approximately $79 billion), there is still a clear need to rigorously prioritize projects to reflect the regional priorities set forth in the RTP. Furthermore, a sizable part of the current TIP program goes beyond the state of good repair with planned highway and transit capacity expansions, particularly in the Nassau/Suffolk and Mid-Hudson South TCC regions. As with maintenance and repair, these enhancements and expansions should likewise be guided by the RTP to realize the envisioned transportation network.

The TIP is prepared and coordinated by NYMTC central staff in cooperation with the various TCC subregional staff. As discussed earlier, each TCC develops a subregional TIP which is then reviewed for consistency, approval, and inclusion in the regional TIP. The current TIP specifies proposed transportation improvements to be implemented in the 1995/96 through 1998/99 period. The TIP provides highlights of regional and local projects which include the bridge improvements, highway improvements, transit improvements and ferry improvement projects. Regional projects focusing on mobility improvements (totaling $800 million) are highlighted including such projects as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOV), Employee Commute Options (ECO), and Bikeway and Walkway Improvements. Regional operator highlighted projects are also summarized from the MTA, Port Authority, and the New York State Thruway.

The prioritization process for selecting projects to appear in the TIP varies by TCC but follows a combination of two steps. First, each TCC gathers a program of proposed projects from their member agencies which addresses the needs of the system or modes for which they are responsible. According to the 1995/96 -1998/99 TIP, the primary goals of most member agencies in the NYMTC region during the past ten years have been threefold: (1) to restore their systems to a state of good repair, (2) to assure normal replacement and maintenance, and (3) to provide projects that either improve network efficiency, manage demand, or provide limited capacity improvements.

In the second step, each TCC develops evaluation criteria for the prioritization of projects in its subregional TIPs. With the assistance of implementing agencies, each of the TCCs has developed a comprehensive quantitative process for prioritizing projects eligible for Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Program (STP) Enhancement funding. These criteria were developed to reflect the goals and objectives stated in NYMTC's RTP for 2015 and the ISTEA fifteen planning factors. At each of the TCCs, CMAQ and STP Enhancement projects are ranked within three broad categories which include: (1) Maintain and Sustain (facilities), (2) Improve Mobility, and (3) External Mandates (level of compliance).

The Mid-Hudson South TCC "Black Book," which functions as MHSTCC's operating manual, provides an example of some of these criteria. Criteria are designed for each funding category. For example, STP Urban funding projects are ranked under three categories with multiple criteria. Each criteria represents a weighted share of the category score versus other criteria in the category. Projects are scored on each criterion according to whether they have no impact (0 score), minimal impact (1/3 of maximum score), moderate impact (2/3 of maximum score), or very significant impact (full score). Sample categories and criteria for STP Urban projects include:

Maintain and Sustain- M& S (40% of total) External Mandates- EM (30% of total)

! Condition (40% of M&S) ! Air Quality/Envir. Mitigation (30% of EM)

! Safety/Security (30% of M&S) ! Energy Conservation (20% of EM)

! Management Systems (0% of M&S) ! Land Use/Development (20% of EM)

! Efficiency/Productivity (30% of M&S) ! ADA Implementation (30% of EM)

! Usage (25% of IM)

! Congestion Relief (25% of IM)

! Freight/Goods Movement (10% of IM)

! Intermodal Considerations (15% of IM)

! Transit Enhancement/Service Quality (15% of IM)

! Transportation Enhancement (10% of IM)

All projects are then assessed for their consistency with the RTP and particularly in response to the critical issues identified in the RTP. While the criteria vary between TCCs with regard to relative weighting of categories and criteria, they all include a point system linked to the goals and objectives from the RTP and associated criteria and performance measures for prioritizing proposed projects.

The UPWP identifies transportation and transportation related air quality planning and improvement program activities and studies for the NYMTC region. NYMTC's 1995-96 UPWP identifies $15.1 million of programmed annual activities relating to on-going planning efforts in the NYMTC region, including funding from FTA ($3.1 million), PL/FHWA ($8.9 million), and local match ($3.0 million). Of the total funds, approximately $7.3 million support NYMTC central staff continuing programs and technical studies, $0.9 million support subregional TCC staff, and $3.1 million is allocated to eight subregions (Counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland, Putnam, and Westchester; MTA; NYC Department of City Planning; and NYCDOT) under the subregional program. Funding sources are specifically allocated to support work tasks within the UPWP and the responsible oversight agency and project members are identified.

The UPWP is divided into three sections: Central Staff programs including National Emphasis Areas (NEA), Other UPWP Programs including Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, and Special Projects. Appendix A of the UPWP includes a list of projects submitted by PANYNJ for coordination with NYMTC and other planning agency efforts. The sections are further broken down by sub-headings which include the following UPWP elements:

Other UPWP Programs Central Staff Programs

! NYSDOT Downstate ! Program Support and Administration

! TCC Staff ! General Development/Comprehensive Planning

! Subregional Planning ! Long Range Transportation Planning: Systems Level

! Long Island TDM ! Short Range Transportation Planning

! Mid-HudsonTDM ! Transportation Improvement Program

! New York City TDM ! NEA: Clean Air Planning

! NYSDOT Corridor Studies ! NEA: Development of Management

! NEA: Development of Public Participation Process

Special Projects ! Special Technical Studies (under NYMTC)

! Transit Studies ! Administration: Central Staff Operations

! Discretionary Studies

! Highway Studies

! Highway Planning & Research Studies

! Research & Development

! Highway Management

! State Studies

! CMAQ Studies

! Non-Federally Funded Studies

During the site visit, staff from NYMTC and implementing agencies expressed concern regarding a limited coordinated inter-agency approach to planning activities and the overlap of planning efforts between NYMTC, the TCCs, implementing agencies, and local jurisdictions. A review of the UPWP reveals many areas of apparent overlapping efforts with opportunities for consolidation of efforts. In particular, staff cited the need for greater connection between the outcome of planning efforts and the projects selected for the RTP and the TIP.

The FHWA and FTA Administrators have identified six focal points for the certification reviews being conducted in major metropolitan areas. One objective of the enhanced planning reviews is to gather information which will serve as a prelude to the certification review. For that reason, these focal points are reviewed as part of the enhanced planning review. These focal points are:

The following sections describe how the regional transportation planning process is addressing each of the focal points.

The RTP states that total available resources through the 2015 planning horizon will be $90 billion which nearly funds Level I-State of Good Repair and Level II-New Capacity improvements estimated at a total cost of $95 billion. Cost estimates for Level III-New Capacity Plus improvements in the RTP are not detailed and are described only in terms of an "order of magnitude" level at this time. Despite the fact that the RTP does not currently include operating expenses, the gap between $90 billion in resources available and $95 billion (for Level I & II) in resource requirements presented in the RTP is sufficiently small to allow NYMTC to consider its RTP to be fully funded. Furthermore, fiscal constraint of the RTP is also assumed because transportation remains a top priority for the future; all levels of government have recognized the critical need to restore and improve the region's transportation system and will respond accordingly. Based on those assumptions, the RTP includes projections that ISTEA will be renewed at the same authorization levels as the last year of the Act, state and local resources will continue to increase or at least remain at current levels, and "other" revenues including bridge and tunnel toll revenues will continue to play a major role in funding the future transportation system.

The RTP does discuss future funding options to close the Level III funding gap. Among the options considered are increased funding commitments from federal and state sources, redistribution of state and federal resources within the state, use of state General Fund revenues, debt servicing, and user fees and various sources such as payroll, sales, or property taxes. However, while many options are considered, the RTP does not present a strategic approach to begin the process for building the consensus required to raise additional revenues. According to the RTP, NYMTC will rely instead upon the historical commitment of the region's transportation providers to prevent the region's transportation system from "slipping back into an era of deferred maintenance."

The process for ensuring fiscally constrained RTP and TIP is not discussed in either document, although the TIP appears to be financially constrained. The TIP, which includes over $20 billion in transportation improvements, identifies capital costs including both replacement and rehabilitation of existing equipment and facilities as well as increases due to new investments. Operating and maintenance costs include those for the present system as well as increases due to capital investments and service expansions. According to discussions with staff of local implementing agencies during the EPR, agencies have voluntarily imposed constraint (programming only for as much money as is available) on their planning process in an effort to improve their ability to make the TIP a realistic tool for implementation.

Many participants from NYMTC and implementing agencies cited the inability to prioritize and implement projects which are "regional" in nature as a significant weakness in NYMTC's current decision making processes. Participants cited the need to take unified action to ensure the region's future global competitiveness and to explicitly acknowledge the connection between infrastructure investment and economic vitality. However, under the current process whereby highway and flexible funds are allocated to the subregions by the State and then programmed by the subregional and implementing agencies, the obstacles to overcoming parochial interests appear to be significant. In response to these obstacles, the MIS process was cited as a potential tool in overcoming parochial interests and building region-wide consensus by identifying projects which are "regional" in nature.

The Council approved and adopted procedures for MIS on February 16, 1995, which outlines their approach to identifying potential MIS and performing those studies. The procedures include requirements for interagency coordination, public participation, and alternatives analysis and specifies that all interested and relevant agencies must be included from the initial stages of the study. Under the procedures, either the MPO or an implementing agency may identify the need for an MIS. According to NYMTC's MIS procedures, the public's early and active involvement in an MIS will be sought, including its involvement in defining the problem to be solved and in identifying and analyzing alternatives, and selecting the preferred alternative.

NYMTC's MIS procedures define an MIS as a highway or transit improvement of substantial cost that is expected to have significant effect on capacity, traffic flow, level of service, or mode share at the corridor or subarea level. While there are currently some noteworthy MISs under way--such as the MTA LIRR's East Side Access study, which includes an expansive scope of alternatives analysis--a review of potential and existing MISs in the TIP and UPWP reveals that there are separate efforts being undertaken by highway and transit agencies within the same corridors. These include studies such as the MTA/NJ Transit/PANYNJ's Access to the Region's Core (ARC) study and numerous NYSDOT studies focusing on major expressways providing access to Manhattan.

Many corridor studies throughout the region are being examined as possible MISs. According to NYMTC central staff, they have not had an active role in identifying MIS study needs or in the study activities, despite the formal MIS procedures. Furthermore, while NYMTC staff and implementing agency staff have participated on each other's study technical advisory committees to ensure consistency of MIS assumptions, implementing agencies acknowledged the existing overlap of current MIS study efforts and agreed that NYMTC could potentially provide a greater centralized coordinating function in the MIS process.

As a Transportation Management Area (TMA - defined as an urban area with a population greater than 200,000) and an ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment area, the New York metropolitan region is required to develop a Congestion Management System (CMS). NYMTC has taken the lead role in developing the regional CMS, with responsibility for specific components of CMS development assigned to the various NYMTC member agencies. NYMTC's 1995 UPWP includes an ongoing task for development of the CMS funded at $230,000. As discussed in NYMTC's Regional Congestion Management System Work Plan published in December 1994, the regional CMS is being designed to meet four stated goals:

NYMTC has developed CMS performance indices based on measures of time/density at network locations which require identification of the onset of congestion (threshold), the spatial breadth of congestion (localized, corridor, or system-wide), and congestion magnitude consisting of measures of both duration and intensity (in terms of vehicles, people, and freight). Congestion thresholds will be measured using volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.9 or greater for vehicles, three square feet for passengers (standing) for local transit vehicles, and 100% seat occupancy for express buses and commuter rail. The magnitude of congestion will provide the following parameters which will be used as performance measures for the CMS:

The regional CMS is being developed in three stages, the first of which is to define the transportation network that will comprise the system. For the first cycle of CMS, NYMTC has defined the network as consisting of 2,160 highway miles, 480 commuter railroad miles, and 260 subway miles and plans to have data available at the link level for analysis. Congestion on the system will be classified as non-recurring or recurring, and non-recurring will be further broken down between sporadic (random congestion resulting from incidents) or intermittent (congestions resulting due to special events or construction). Data on traffic volumes, vehicle classification counts, and occupancy counts for both highways and transit will be the basis for estimating recurring congestion, while incident data for sporadic congestion will be provided by the Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee (TRANSCOM). TRANSCOM was established as an agency to address congestion in the region through incident detection and management services. TRANSCOM is funded by FHWA at $11.4 million, and members include: state police from all three states, the MTA, NYSDOT, NJDOT, Connecticut Department of Transportation, NYS Thruway Authority, NJ Highway and Turnpike Authorities, NJ Transit, NYCDOT, PANYNJ, PATH, Palisades Interstate Park Commission, and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority.

NYMTC will use NYSDOT's Linear Delay model to measure the magnitude of highway congestion, and development of similar tools are planned for non-highway transit modes. Once operational, NYMTC plans to use its new regional travel demand forecasting model to evaluate the effect of proposed strategies for dealing with congestion. Transportation Demand Management (TDM), which includes strategies aimed at influencing people's travel behavior, will play a large part in those strategies. Under the 1995 UPWP, separate TDM programs for each of the three subregions are funded through Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and state funds for a combined total of approximately $4.1 million. According to the Work Plan, when the CMS is fully operational, recommended congestion relief actions will be ranked and prioritized with respect to regional needs and priorities through the long range planning process.

The New York metropolitan region is part of both the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas defined by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). As a nonattainment area, the region is required to show conformity of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality. This is satisfied if the total emissions expected to result from implementation of the projects and activities contained in the RTP and TIP are demonstrated to be less than or equal to the mobile source emissions budget established in the applicable SIP. Transportation projects and programs must also comply with Transportation Control Measures (TCM) contained in the applicable SIP.

The Urban Planning Section of NYSDOT works with the NYMTC central staff, subregional TCC staff, and regional office NYSDOT staff to ensure appropriate coordination among agencies to address conformity requirements for NYMTC's TIP and RTP. The schedule for determining conformity typically includes the following progression:

1. Definition of exempt/non-exempt and regionally significant projects including tracking of projects from previous TIP.
2. Transportation Network Forecasting using the regional transportation demand model network and project-by-project evaluation of emissions in cases where impacts can not be incorporated to the model.
3. Emissions analysis is produced to compare the overall build/no-build comparison.
4. Draft conformity documentation.
5. Interagency Consultation: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and other applicable agencies, who are involved throughout the process, are given a 15-day review period prior to public review.
6. Public review including a 30-day review period.
7. Address comments, resolve outstanding conflicts, and NYMTC adoption of conformity statement.

Air quality conformity analyses showing conformity of the 2015 RTP and the 1994/95-1998/99 TIP with the SIP were submitted in November and September of 1994 respectively. However, due to delays in the completion of a fully operational interim model discussed in Section VII of this report, the 1996 TIP conformity analysis was delayed. While progress on the development of the interim model has resumed since the time of the EPR, NYMTC central staff repeatedly emphasized that their ability to perform future conformity analyses will depend on the timely completion of all model updates.

In response to ISTEA requirements, many efforts are underway to enhance public involvement through the development of a broad range of techniques. The Council adopted final public participation procedures for itself and three subregional TCCs in September of 1994. NYMTC's public participation process functions on three distinct levels to meet the federally mandated public participation requirements: the Council level, the TCC level, and the individual implementing agency level.

Council. At the Council level, bi-monthly PFAC meetings and annual and special purpose Council meetings are open to the public. The public is invited to participate and comment on all agenda items throughout the meetings, in addition to discussing relevant issues during a special public comment period. Additionally, the NYMTC central staff publishes and distributes the "Annual Report," "Facts and Services," and "Council Contact," and maintains direct contact with a number of individuals and groups throughout the region.

TCC. At the subregional level, public participation activities also take place within the three TCCs. The TCCs reach out to private transportation operators to include them in the planning process early in the project selection stage. Private transit service providers are encouraged to participate in TCC meetings, various technical advisory committees, and private transit operator councils set up by TCC subregional members. Each TCC has its own public participation process for developing its plans, programs, and projects as follows:

Individual Members. Prior to submitting federal grant applications each year, the MTA holds public meeting and hearings. Documents containing project descriptions and costs are distributed for public viewing at locations throughout the city approximately 30 days prior to hearings. At the hearings, the public has an opportunity to review and comment on proposed projects and operations. The MTA's Public Citizens Advisory Committee (PCAC) serves as an advocacy group to the MTA that follows up on public questions and issues within specific MTA divisions.

Each fall, the NYMTC central staff begins the public participation process for the TIP by providing the TCCs with guidance and updates of federal, state, and council requirements for the public participation effort and instructs the TCCs to initiate their TIP Update Call Letter. The TCCs widely distribute the Call Letter to participating agencies and interested parties. The informational package includes information on how interested parties can participate in the process, TCC staff to contact for further information, a copy of the current year's TIP, and a general schedule of events for the TIP update effort. The central staff continually updates its mailing list and informs the TCCs of new individuals and groups that are interested in the process.

The TCCs develop their project listings and make them available to the public for review and comment in accordance with each TCC's written public participation procedures. Once public comments are received, responses are provided by the appropriate agency and are integrated into the subregional TIPs. Once public input into the documents has been appropriately incorporated, final drafts are prepared for the PFAC's review and approval at a PFAC meeting, which is open to the public. NYMTC central staff then informs the public, through the news media and press releases, that the drafts are available for review at numerous locations.

The establishment of these procedures represent positive steps toward meeting the public involvement criteria established in ISTEA. However, as part of the open public meeting held during the EPR, public participants expressed a number of fundamental concerns regarding the ability of the public to play a significant role at either the NYMTC or subregional TCC level. The lack of involvement on the part of elected officials was the most frequently cited frustration. This has led to a perception, as expressed by a number of the participants, that public participation is a fruitless exercise because "the Council is not where decisions are made" and a feeling that the public does not have real access to decision makers.

The public participants also voiced concern that the voting process at both the Council and TCC level, which requires all decisions to be unanimous, removes all relevant debate from the public realm and puts it behind closed doors. As a prime example, members of the public cited the existence of pre-PFAC meetings which are closed to the public. Participating members of the public also expressed a desire to see the MPO and federal agencies take a more active role in decision making on specific projects, rather than leaving it to the implementing agencies. Finally, concerns were raised by local government borough representatives regarding the lack of consideration given to their borough strategies in the formation of the RTP and the TIP.

ISTEA requires that the fifteen planning factors be considered and reflected in the products of the planning process. According to subregional TCC staff, each of the TCCs is evolving from an "after-the-fact" approach where the final product is examined to see if it addresses the fifteen factors to an approach of integrating the fifteen factors into the project evaluation criteria used at the beginning of the TIP and RTP cycles. This evolution is evident in the criteria which are being used to evaluate projects at the TCC level for Surface Transportation Program (STP) urban and CMAQ funding categories as discussed earlier under Section IV.B. Each of the criteria, which are grouped under the three broad categories (maintain and sustain, improve mobility, external mandates), reflects one or more of the fifteen factors.

The New York City TCC (NYCTCC) requires all proposing agencies to submit an initial project proposal which includes statements regarding how the project addresses the fifteen planning factors. The other TCCs have similar requirements for addressing the factors in their project submittal processes as well. While NYMTC's RTP and TIP do discuss the need to address the fifteen factors in the planning process, neither document describes the process through which this is accomplished. However, both the RTP and the TIP do include summaries of how consideration of the factors is reflected in the document. In particular, the 1994/95-1998/99 TIP specifically addresses how each of the ISTEA fifteen factors is considered as follows:

A major thrust of ISTEA is support for the integration of strategic planning between multiple transportation modes in metropolitan areas. In the New York City metropolitan area, issues of increasing congestion, air quality, and the need to address freight movement require that multimodal alternatives be considered.

NYMTC's RTP for 2015 identifies freight and the intermodal transfer of goods as critical issues for the region. At present, approximately 90% of all freight enters the NYMTC region via truck. This dependency has significant implications for congestion, air quality, and the system-wide performance of the regional transportation network. Most of the freight arrives in New Jersey and is transhipped to New York, resulting in approximately 30,000 daily eastbound truck crossings over the Hudson River. Over the past thirty years, as freight volumes have significantly increased, the number of major rail carriers serving the region has been reduced from eleven to one. Today, rail freight accounts for less than 3% of the total freight tonnage shipped in the NYMTC region versus approximately 42% nationally. This is due in part to a lack of modern facilities and intermodal equipment and a lack of adequate connections to the national rail system. The high cost of freight in the New York region is further exacerbated due to tolls, congestion, missing links, and restricted facilities on the local transportation network.

Implementation of recent rail freight projects and proposals, such as the Oak Point Link and Harlem River Yard, are intended to increase the role of rail freight within the region. Furthermore, NYMTC central staff are currently working with NYSDOT to develop the freight portion of an Intermodal Management System (IMS). The first task in this effort was to identify freight facilities and systems inventories for all major air, rail, and marine modes. Future steps will involve identifying freight movement congestion spots and the development of rapid response and long-term strategies to address the problem. There are also currently a number of activities under way to address goods movement in the region including the PANYNJ-sponsored Access to the Region's Core Study and the State's Full Freight Access Program. However, there is currently no clear commitment by or coordination among agencies to implement study recommendations. Furthermore, analytical efforts relating to goods movement are currently fragmented between various agencies, and the development of multimodal, freight-related project selection criteria does not appear to be a high priority.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is responsible for operation of all major public mass transit in the New York metropolitan region. The MTA is comprised of a number of agencies which include New York City Transit (MTA NYCT), Staten Island Railway (MTA SIR), Long Island Railroad (MTA LIRR), Long Island Bus (MTA LIB), Metro-North Railroad (MTA MNR), MTA Bridges and Tunnels, and the MTA Card Company. As a major transportation implementor, MTA is represented on the Council, each of the three TCC policy boards, and the NYMTC Program, Administration and Finance Committee (PFAC) and is an active partner in the local transportation planning process.

The transit components identified in the RTP and the regional and subregional TIP are developed by the MTA and its agencies. The basis for transit planning is MTA's Strategic Business Plan (SBP) 1995-1999, published in November of 1994. MTA's strategy put forth in the SBP is referred to as Fare Deal, which consists of the following four components: intensified customer service, increased transit service, innovative pricing, and infrastructure improvements. Under the recommended plan, the following ridership changes are expected during the SBP period:

• MTA MNR ridership increases by 6.0 million passengers for an average annual increase of 2.0%.
• MTA LIRR ridership increases by 4.3 million passengers for an average annual increase of 1.2%.
• MTA NYCT subway ridership increases by 92.9 million rides for an average annual increase of 1.8%.
• MTA NYCT bus ridership increases by 3.0 million rides for an average annual increase of 0.2%.
• MTA Bridges and Tunnels toll increases expected to result in 4.2 million fewer crossings.

Many of the projected increases in ridership cited above are expected to result from the implementation of automated fare collection and the recently introduced Metro Card. Through these measures, MTA is striving to provide a seamless transportation system which will enable passengers to use all components of the system more flexibly with regard to the number of stops allowed, changes of mode, and trip pricing. When fully implemented, the package of automated fare collection and innovative pricing is estimated to yield approximately 70 million additional annual trips on the bus and subway system.

The SBP is balanced through 1996 and projects a balance in later years through a small amount of intergovernmental assistance. Financial assumptions for the planning period include continuation of current State Business Tax Surcharges, exclusion of the voluntary annual "maintenance-of-effort" contribution from New York City, and continuation of federal operating assistance. The SBP also includes a proposal for an 8% increase in fares for MTA NYCT and MTA commuter railways. Realization of future ridership gains and the resources required to generate those gains are also addressed through several network expansion studies. These studies are included in MTA's 20-Year Capital Needs Assessment for 1992-2011 and include MTA LIRR's East Side Access study, MTA MNR's Trans-Hudson Crossing analysis, and MTA NYCT's Manhattan's East Side Transit Alternatives and East River Crossing studies.

According to NYMTC planning documents, bicycles comprise 10% of the vehicle mix in New York City and account for 70,000 commuter trips on a typical day. Pedestrian trips account for approximately 340,000 work trips in New York City's central business district per day. Given the significant level of bicycle and pedestrian activity in the City, NYMTC and NYCDOT staff acknowledged that safety is a major concern. A number of bicycle and pedestrian deaths result from accidents with vehicles each year. In response, NYCDOT and the New York City Department of Community Planning are developing bicycle and pedestrian master plans. Pedestrian and possibly bicycle networks are also being considered for inclusion in NYMTC's "best practices" model. The MTA's current model of the transit network also includes a "walk network" for lower Manhattan.

The NYCTCC subregion has established a project prioritization process which sets aside CMAQ and STP Enhancement funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects, which might otherwise not be able to compete with other projects on an emissions reduction basis. Of the $72 million in CMAQ funds for NYCTCC subregion, a minimum of 10% and a maximum of 20% can be used for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Last fiscal year, 18% of CMAQ funds went to support bicycle and pedestrian projects. In Nassau/Suffolk (N/S TCC) and the Mid-Hudson TCCs (MHSTCC), bicycle and pedestrian projects compete head to head with all projects for CMAQ and STP Enhancement funding. According to N/S TCC and MHSTCC staff, while stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian projects may not comprise a large percentage of project funds, bicycle and pedestrian improvements often appear as components of larger highway or transit projects.

A new regional transportation model is being prepared by the NYMTC central staff, with consultant assistance, to satisfy modeling requirements in ISTEA and the CAAA. Approximately 31 local agencies are participating on NYMTC's Transportation Models Technical Committee for the modeling update and NYMTC has established an Advisory Committee comprised of nationally recognized leaders in the field of transportation modeling. Modeling staff from a number of implementing agencies emphasized that the underlying impetus for participation on the Technical Committee is the need for greater coordination of models, systems, and the information used as inputs to the models. While NYMTC central staff works with MTA to provide a modeling coordination forum for NYMTC members, each implementing agency had previously developed independent modeling capability due to their reluctance to utilize NYMTC as a forum for regional decision making and the lack of a clearly defined and agreed upon role for NYMTC central staff.

NYMTC is replacing its old mainframe based traffic model with the modern P/C Workstation based TRANPLAN/TRANSCAD demand model. TRANPLAN will be used for highway analysis, while TRANSCAD will be used for modal split and transit analysis. For air quality conformity determinations in 1995, an interim procedure based on recent improvements in forecasting Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and speeds was being developed to provide incremental improvements over the past forecasting for NYMTC. In support of model development, new demographic models, which are intended to provide continuous updates through the year 2020, are currently under development in addition to plans for the first new Household Interview Survey (HIS). The HIS would provide travel data which would replace data still in use from the last survey conducted in 1963.

The fully operational interim model was originally expected to have been ready to use for the 1996 TIP conformity analysis while the new regional "best practices" model was to be completed in 1996. However, funding of the interim model, the "best practices" model, and the HIS was delayed for nearly one year as part of a general spending freeze at the NYSDOT. While the freeze at NYSDOT still exists, the delay in funding for the contract to complete the interim model was recently resolved. Approval to spend the approximately $4 million necessary to complete the "best practices" model and the HIS is still pending. A number of NYMTC and implementing agency staff expressed concern that without the completion of the "best practices" model, there would continue to be a duplication of modeling efforts, and a risk that implementors will not use the same assumptions and input data for similar types of studies.

The intent of the members of the Technical Committee is to have all local agencies use the new regional transportation model once it is developed. NYMTC staff also expressed the belief that the "best practices" model and supporting databases would go a long way toward helping to achieve a regional focus. In the interim, significant progress has been made to standardize the underlying network structures of the various agency models and to share model assumptions and input data. NYMTC central staff has worked closely with participating agencies to attempt to achieve consistency of the demographic and travel assumptions through the Forecast Working Group (FWG). The FWG was established as an informal committee by the PFAC to review forecasts and recommend forecasts and ranges for adoption by NYMTC Council.

The EPR site visit included a Public Round Table meeting with members of the general public. Notification was provided to all parties listed on NYMTC's mailing list requesting their input on opportunities for public involvement in the NYMTC transportation planning process. Discussion centered around a number of fundamental concerns regarding the ability of the public to play a significant role at either the NYMTC or subregional TCC level. As discussed earlier in Section V.E of this report, the lack of involvement on the part of elected officials was the most frequently cited frustration. This situation has led to a perception that "the Council is not where decisions are made" and a feeling that the public does not have real access to decision makers. The public participants also voiced concern that the voting process at both the Council and TCC level, which requires all decisions to be unanimous, removes all relevant debate from the public realm and puts it behind closed doors. Concerns were also raised by local government borough representatives regarding the lack of consideration given to their borough strategies in the formation of the RTP and the TIP.

During the site visit, a Local Officials Round Table meeting was held with representatives of local elected officials who sit on the Council and TCC policy boards as well as Council and board members from the implementing agencies. The absence of local officials was noteworthy and reflects the discussions and observations contained in Section III.A of this report. Representatives involved in the Round Table discussion expressed varying degrees of support for the current process, while other participants questioned whether a regional perspective could be formed with the fragmentation of the planning process between the NYMTC central staff and the three TCCs. Other participants cited the need to unify regional planning between New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

The EPR of the New York City area metropolitan transportation planning process reveals that progress is clearly being made with respect to meeting a number of the challenges set forth in ISTEA. This includes noteworthy efforts to enhance public outreach, development of project prioritization criteria, an emphasis on non-motorized transportation, and a high level of commitment from all staff. However, the EPR left an overall impression of organizational fragmentation. This limits NYMTC's ability to function as an effective and unified body for regional decision making and the realization of regional priorities.

A significant weakness in the decision-making process is that the region seems to lack a global competition viewpoint. The connection between infrastructure investment and economic well-being seems to have been lost. The members of NYMTC, and in particular the local elected officials, need to be actively involved at all levels in order to move from a planning process which has been project-driven by historic project "pipelines" and subregional interests toward a process which is problem-solution oriented, driven by consensus and cooperative decision making through the planning process and the implementation of the products of that process.

Chairman, New York City Planning Commission 1 1

Commissioner, New York City DOT 1 1

(Representing the Mayor of the City of New York)

County Executive of Nassau County 1 1

County Executive of Suffolk County 1 1

County Executive of Putnam County 1 1

County Executive of Westchester County 1 1

Chairman of Legislators from Rockland County 1 1

Chairman, Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1 1

Commissioner, New York State DOT 1 1

Subtotal Voting Members 9 9

Federal Highways Administration 1 0

Federal Transit Administration 1 0

US Environmental Protection Agency 1 0

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 1 0

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 1 0

New Jersey Transit 1 0

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority 1 0

NJTPA NYMTC-Central Staff NJ Transit

Joel S. Weiner, Director Raymond Ruggieri, Director Alfred Harf, Ast. Exec. Director

Cliff Sobel See-Wong Shum Brent Barnes, Dir. Business Plan.

Karen Shannon Michele Bager Jim Redeker

Martin Hofler Tyrone Crittenden Matt Ledger, Sr. Business Planner

Neil D. Muller Kuo-Ann Chiao

Brian J. Fineman Juliette Bergman MTA

Laura Torchio Guy S. LaMonoca William Wheeler

Mark Berger Howard J. Mann Jerry Litt

Roseanne Sullivan Peter Derrick

Julia Zhou NYMTC-NYC TCC Janet Merola

Hank DiPasquale Larry T. Malsam, Coordinator Larry Fleischer

Calvin O. Edghill, Jr. Angelina Foster Pam Burford, LIRR

Sharon Z Roerty Chris Hardeg David Armstrong

Mark Soloff Robert Newhouser, NYC Transit

Holly Schwietering NYMTC-MHS TCC Todd C. DiScala, NYC Transit

Tiffany Bohlin Sarah B. Rios, Coordinator

Colette Santasieri Jean Shanahan NJDOT

Arlene Horowitz Bill Beetle, Dir. System Pl.

Laura Livecchi NYMTC-N/S TCC Bonny F. McCarter, Project Eng.

Margaret Conklin, Asst. Staff Dir. Ted Matthews, Mgr. Freight Svs.

PANYNJ William Chandler Andrew R. Swords, Statewide Pl. Mary K. Murphy David Kletsman

S. David Phraner NYSDOT

Thomas Hannan NYC Planning Michael S. Azer, Region 10

Frank J. Margella Floyd Lapp Richard A. Peters, Region 8

Rich Roberts Marian Lee Edward J. Petrou

Bob Donnelly Rich Schmalz, Region 11

Robert T. Beard NYSDEC Wendy Van Eaton, Region 8

Rose DeMaio Jim Ralston Clarence Fosdick, Dir. Comp. Pl.

Densford Escarpeta

NYC Mayor's Office NYCDOT

Peter B. Fleischer NJDEP David Henley

Debra Frank R. Bruce Benton Seth Berman

Kevin Costa

Consultants Federal Agencies

Don Kuser, Robert A. Roc Associates Marion Pulsifer, Regional Counsel FTA Region II

Michelle MacKinnon, Lehr & Associates TJ Chandler, FHWA New Jersey Division

Kenneth Hess, Louis Berger & Associates Eloise Freeman, FHWA Region 1

Regional Agency Participants- New Jersey Regional Agency Participants- New York

George M. Ververides, Dir. Middlesex Cnty. Pl. Gerald V. Cronin, Suffolk County DOT

Frank Reilly, Exec. Dir. Morris Ctny. DOT Irwin B. Kessman, Nassau County DOT

Donna Orbach, Bergen Cnty. Dept. Pl. & Ec. Dev. Thomas Malarkey, Rockland Cnty. Dept. Pub.Tr.

Thomas Drabic, Sussex County Planning Dept. Donald Marotta, Nassau County Planning

Terry dunn Egan, Bergen County Chuck Nauss, Suffolk County Dept. Public Works

William Love, City of Jersey City Trans. Analyst Manuel da Cunha, Rockland Cnty. Hghwy. Dept.

Cheryl Allen-Munley, City of Jersey City Dr. James J. Yarmus, Comm. Rockland Ctny. P.E.

Ted Matley, Hunterdon County Principal Planner

Chester Mattson, Bergen Cnty. Dir. Pl. & Ec. Dev.

Fernando Rubio, Newark Dept. of Engineering

Bernard Cohen, MTA Paul Gallay, NYSDEC Acting Reg. Dir.

Tom Jelliffe, NYC DOT Gerald V. Cronin, Suffolk County DOT

Sarah Rios, MHS TCC Patty Chemka, Westchester County DOT

Michael S. Azer, NYSDOT Reg. 10 Planning Floyd Lapp, NYC Dept. of Planning

Larry Malsam, NYC TCC Chris Hardeg, NYC TCC

Margaret Conklin, N/S TCC Angelina Foster, NYC TCC

Wendy Van Eaton, NYSDOT- MHS TCC R.G. Hampston, NYSDEC Asst. Commissioner

Roseanne Sullivan, NJTPA Cliff Sobel, NJTPA

Joel S. Weiner, NJTPA Jerry Litt, MTA

Edward Buroughs, Wstchr. Cnty. Dept. of Pl. William Wheeler, MTA

Irwin B. Kessman, Nassau County DOT

Frieda Zames, Disabled In Action of NY Michael Imperiale, Disabled In Action of NY

Robert L. Levine, DIA Adrienne Taub, PCAC

Bernd Zimmermann, Bronx Boro Pres. Off. Eduardo Serafin, Citizen/ Transportation Eng.

Joe Lobeli, Senator Levy's Office Jerry Litt, MTA

Donald Burns, Bronx Boro Pres. Office Peter Dermat, MTA

Gerard Bogacz, Westchester Cnty. DOT Richard Gans, Transportation Alternatives

Janine Bauer, Tri-State Transp. Campaign Sarah Stanley, MBPO

Jim Tripp, Env. Defense Fund Peter G. King, NYSDOT

Chris Gill, Senator Tully's Office Z. Frank, Landmark Studios, Inc.

George Haikalis, Auto-Free NY Frank J. Margella, PANYNJ

Shirley Jelks, NYC Transit Anthony Callender, Citizen

George Armeh, ESPD David C. Kaplan, NYCCV

James M. Sherry, Senator Tully's Office Bob Snatasieru, LIGRA

Mary Ann Ragona, LIGRA Richard Muller, Tri-State Transp. Campaign

Maurice Paprin, Business/Labor Coalition James Lascalia, LIGRA

Roslyn Carroll, Union Settlement Michelle DePass, NYC Env. Justice Alliance

Samaad Bishop, NYC Env. Justice Alliance

John Szeligowski, Staten Is. Citizens for Clean Air

Location: Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Oval Room 44th Floor

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA)

New York Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)-HQ and Reg. 8,9,11

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)

Port Authority of New York/ New Jersey (PANYNJ)- Interstate Planning

*Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)

New Jersey Transit (NJT)

*Note- NYMTC is defined as: Council Members, PFAC Members, Central Staff

TCC is defined as: Principals/Voting Members, NYSDOT RPPMs, Staff

MTA is defined as: LIRR, MNR, NYC Transit, MTA Central Staff

NYMTC - 1/2 hour

NJTPA - 1/2 hour

(Each MPO will do a brief description/overview of how their MPO is organized)

12:00 - 1:00 Lunch

NYMTC - 1/2 hour

NJTPA - 1/2 hour

(Subjects: Bi-State Transportation Needs, Goods Movement, Air Quality)

NYMTC - 1/2 hour Modeling, Transportation Forecasting

NJTPA - 1/2 hour Modeling, Transportation Forecasting

(Each MPO will give a brief general overview/ non-technical on modeling and

forecasting)

Location: Port Authority, Economic & Policy Dept., 54th Floor South

NYMTC & TCC Roles and Responsibilities

NYMTC/TCC & Other Agencies - MTA, PANYNJ, NYCDOT

NYMTC with other MPO's- Newburgh/Orange, Poughkeepsie/Duchess, CT