NYMTC Freight Forum Meeting
February 13, 2002
City College of New York
Summary Notes

AGENDA

Summary

The morning began with a welcome from Tom Schulze, Executive Director, and Jose Holguin-Veras from CUNY introduced Gregory Williams, the President of City College. Following his welcome remarks, the MPO Panel began with Richard Stoecker from Southwestern Regional Planning Agency (CT) and Wayne Bradley from North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority as participants. Each welcomed the attendees and gave a brief overview of freight planning activities going on in their MPO region.

Following this panel discussion, Joseph Boardman, New York State Department of Transportation Commissioner, gave the keynote address.

Gerry Bogacz of NYMTC then spoke about the status freight planning since the last freight forum held in 1998.

Howard Mann then discussed the NYMTC Regional Freight Plan currently in progress. Howard discussed the study progress to date and how the strategies were developed. Marc Cutler of Cambridge Systematics, the consulting project manager, gave a presentation of the study strategies and presented details of the analysis used. A copy of this presentation is included in Appendix A. The audience then divided into three breakout groups in three separate rooms, where discussions were held on the proposed strategies for improving freight movement.

Marc Cutler, assisted by Alexander Brown, also of CSI, led the discussion in Room 161. Highlights of the discussion included:

• Levels of infrastructure investment should roughly correspond with the levels of traffic on each corridor. Strong approval for this approach in the freight plan.

• Important considerations post September 11th include safety, security, reliability of freight in the face of accidents, service interruptions, blockages. Statistics on number of accidents (fatal, non-fatal, service-interrupting) should be incorporated into project performance measures.

• Need for close coordination between parallel efforts that may be redundant in their objectives, or have conflicting plans for the same real-estate (such as freight and passenger use of the north shore of SIRR)

• Large focus among infrastructure projects on capital-intensive “intermodal” rail service. Better strategy is to “train” EoH customers to use rail by making smaller short term investments to enable better bulk rail shipments. $10M spent on intermodal clearances doesn’t do much to help intermodal service. (service which won’t really work until the entire $2+ Billion system is in place) $10M spent on bulk improvements, however, could go a long way toward improving service and increasing bulk traffic.

• Presentations focused on inbound traffic, but outbound goods movements are also an important part of the picture. From the carrier perspective, the whole round trip is important. It is not sufficient just to say that rail can bring consumer goods into the region and not consider potential outbound cargoes.

• Particularly important to look at consumer waste, DEP treatment plant waste, and scrap/construction salvage as a potential rail/outbound market. Current Queens Borough agreement prevents rail from moving municipal solid waste, but allows thousands of trucks filled with MSW to travel on Queens roads.

• Need for greater and more grass-roots outreach to the community board-level. NYMTC staff should go to the particularly affected community boards with targeted presentations. Discussion of the difficulties of attracting everyday public to long term planning discussions. Suggestions to increase public participation included:

• Custom tailored invitation to local groups, identifying relevance of project to local interests

• Inflammatory/controversial statements in the public media before important meetings (not necessarily representative of meeting agenda or planned work)

• NYMTC’s limited exposure to everyday New Yorkers leads to the “Ivory Tower” or “WTO” impression of the organization (for those who even know about it) NYMTC as an organization should invest in better self-promotion and marketing

• There is limited/no mention of marine corridors (domestic or international) in the regional freight plan. Aren’t marine strategies an important part of regional freight coordination? Discussion of the landside focus of the project, and coordination with complementary CPIP and other “on terminal” planning efforts.

Specific Project Recommendations

• Gowanus Expressway EIS alternatives

• Raise clearances on Navy Ave. Section of BQE to prevent truck diversion to local streets

• Freight ferries from Newark and JFK airports to downtown location

Gerry Bogacz, assisted by David Phraner of Edwards & Kelcey, led the discussion in Room 125. Highlights of the discussion included:

Part 1. Definition of Priority Investment Area:

“Top of Mind” reactions:

• Need to expand emphasis on waterborne transportation component.

• Consider time as well as tangible resources in ranking projects, programming and evaluating feasibility. Existing processes are too slow. Initiatives and projects that can be advanced quickly should move up in priority. Speed is an advantage and a virtue.

• Related to above…”rather than listing projects by size or cost, array them by feasibility or by time needed to accomplish. Ask what can be done now.”

• Analysis should relate to socio-economic conditions and consider using socio-economic indicators and indices as measurements.

• Need to consider non-stop trips through the priority investment area (vs. those trips serving the distribution or collection needs or originating or terminating in the area).

• Far-reaching and obscure consequences of policy decisions. Example: Oil storage taxes in New York that create an economic advantage in neighboring states

• Track cost of doing business in NYMTC region and economic consequences of cost disparities.

• Include solid waste (and hazardous materials) transport in analysis and determine best way to treat this sensitive subject.

Additions to Priority Investment Area: (Freight Plan technical scope)

• Invest to achieve transportation cost equity throughout the region and across state lines.

• Determine state of deficiencies in terminal area (rail and intermodal yards, terminals, warehousing) and propose system capacity improvements to meet needs and deficiencies

• Monitor infrastructure condition by type consistently and on schedule, to track critical programming requirements.

• Adapt system (rail and water) for line-haul carrying of bulk solid waste as alternative to highway transport.

• Quantify opportunities for “alternative fuels transport.” (I believe this means more extensive adapting of alternative fuels to goods movement).

• Explore means of adding value to products and goods, integrating value added to the goods movement.

• Propose or explore streamlining or reforming management of goods movement system operation. Example: consider a backhaul movement clearinghouse to increase productivity of the system.

• Use of eminent domain to secure and protect rights-of-way and potential yard and terminal options.

• Expand curb space management and enforcement.

• Reform toll policies to reflect time of day and type of vehicle inducements and restraints

• Apply vertical clearance issue to navigation channels selectively. Fixed spans are at 135’ or 210’ from high water mark. Need to identify standard to preserve shipping channels and balance affect of tidal variations and fixed span bridge heights.

• Explore applications of the “Freight Village Concept”

• Consider rational security options that balance unobstructed goods movement flows with objective of securing the port district, major river crossings and other strategic potential targets. Continue to refine systems for tracking and securing containers and goods.

• New technology applications for security, hazardous materials haulage

• Treat security practices such as truck stops and random inspections.

Deletions from Priority Investment Area:

• Don’t get into a truck vs. rail dispute. Be modally neutral recognizing the unique adaptability of individual modes to perform certain transport functions. Assume an intermodal complexion.

Part 2. Investment Options for Priority Investment Area:

Additions to investment options (specific projects and physical initiatives)

• Extend Clearview Expressway to JFK airport

• Include North Shore (Staten Island) rail corridor for passenger as well as freight. This was later qualified to include the proposed Cross Harbor Tunnel with freight and passenger service sharing that facility. Time limitations prevented a full discussion of the feasibility and cost of this investment option.

• Related to above is integrating passenger and freight in other cross-harbor alternatives.

• BQE vertical clearances, Park to Atlantic Avenues.

• Non specific appeal for further deregulation of modes and freer market conditions.

• Continue to raise vertical clearance restrictions in priority freight corridors and for access to proposed new intermodal facilities.

• Consider adding pipelines to analysis scope and as investment options

• Continue to develop and refine Harlem River Yard.

• Extension of cross Manhattan rail tunnel under East River to Queens

• Outerbridge Crossing as a cross Arthur Kill goods movement resource

• Assess waterborne alternatives to vehicular access to JFK along Linden Blvd.

• Raise priority on planned third track on LIRR Central Branch (through Mineola etc.)

• Enhance rail and highway access to Hunts Point (Market) area.

• Two-way tolls collection for the VZN.

• Eliminate weight limits on LIRR freight corridors

• Extend any Cross Harbor tunnel under Bay Ridge.

Deletions from investment options

• Linden Blvd. recessed truckway.

• Sheridan Expressway/Bruckner-Sheridan upgrade. (“dehighwayize” it)

Investment options outside (or extending outside) the priority investment area:

• Stewart Airport as a regional air cargo facility

• Specify cross Arthur Kill track connection options on New Jersey side.

• Maintain 2-pilot requirement for marine navigation in harbor and beyond in channels entering the harbor.

Part 3. Evaluation Framework:

Key outcomes?

• Better consistency of goods movement planning and operation with local planning such as “197-A” (in the City) local planning and other initiatives at this level.

• Reconciling regional land use and transportation planning. They are performed by different sectors.

• Reconciling state and regional scale transport planning with local zoning and land use prerogatives.

• Reduced cost of doing business for carriers, for shippers, for consignees.

How can success be measured?

• Reduced VMT and Improved Air Quality

• Increasing Rail and Marine modal share

• Develop and refine social cost indices and measurements. Examples: cost of environmental degradation, cost of traffic accidents and insurance claims, PM-10 consequences on health and related health costs.

• Add a multiplier for “human cost.”

• How fast can projects be accomplished, by whom, and the most expedited means

• Cost of goods movement, disaggregated.

What is the relative importance of the measures defined above?

• Time prevented a full discussion of relative importance, but the sense of the group appeared to be divided into two categories; humanists appealing for local and environmental controls and the practitioners appealing for lower operating costs and speedier implementation.

Closing:

1. Participants urged that the final compiling of the work sheets and the two maps be posted on the website.

2. No participants in this session amended any of the maps, but they were used for reference several times during the discussion and two participants photographed them and the worksheets.

3. Parenthetically, the Recorder has several comments on the rail map, but did not mark the map boards, nor were mentioned in the breakout discussion. On the Rail Corridor map, the Morristown Line should be deleted as a freight corridor from the “Southwest Corridor” in New Jersey. It has negligible freight and that which exists, is local in nature. It has limited utility for any freight because of high-density commuter service and overhead catenary. Any Lackawanna Cut Off freight options would be routed via the Boonton Line or other combination of routes. Also on the Southwest Corridor, delete “Valley” from ”LehighValley Line.” NS and the CSAO use the term “Lehigh Line.” Add “West Trenton Line” to the Southwest Corridor. Consider adding the “Northeast Corridor” as well to the Southwest Corridor title. The “Housatonic Line” requires clarification or a change in name. If this is the line from Selkirk/Castleton to Springfield /Ayer and Boston, MA, then it should be called The “Boston” or “Berkshire Line.” If it is truly the Housatonic Railroad which connects by trackage rights on MNRR to the Hudson Line at Beacon NY, I doubt that it carries 10m tons, since it hasn’t operated over these tracks for the last 5 years. The Housatonic RR. also connects to the Boston Line, but its annual tonnage is modest.

Howard Mann, assisted by Noah Caplin of Edwards & Kelcey, led the discussion in Room 105. Highlights of the discussion included:

• Revenue Sources - User Fees
• Infrastructure Banks
• Existing Flows - how they relate to O/D- highway and rail both
• Tolls and impact on route choice
• Land Use Issues
• Warehouses moving further from the city
• Taxation issues - impact on freight movement
• Potential re-use of brownfield sites for distribution facilities
• Impact of labor costs in NY region
• New Brooklyn - JFK truck roadway and freight terminal -Pennsylvania Ave.
• Commuter rail agency policy issues - time windows-weights-clearances
• Remove moratoriums restricting trash export
• Freight through Penn Station - midnights
• Truck use of HOV lanes off-hours

Following the Regional Freight Plan breakout sessions, lunch was held in the North Academic Center. Tom Schulze introduced Iris Weinshall, New York City Department of Transportation Commissioner, who was the lunchtime speaker. Ms. Weinshall discussed the status of freight movement in New York City since 9/11 and new security measures that are in place.

After lunch, the mode specific breakout sessions were held. Two rounds of sessions were presented, with 3 panels at 1:35 and 3 additional panels at 2:30. At 1:35 PM, in Room 161, a panel discussion on building community consensus was held. Panelists were Art Goodwin from the Alameda Corridor Coalition and Omar Freilla from Sustainable South Bronx . Minutes from this session can be found in Appendix B. In Room 125, a panel discussion on the future of the port was held. Panelists included Laura Shabe from CPIP, Judy Barr from the New York City Economic Development Corporation, and Daniel Nurthen from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Minutes from this session can be found in Appendix B. In Room 105, a panel discussion on airport access was held. Panelists included Jim Larsen from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Brian Barbaccia from Federal Express, and Victor Teglasi from New York State DOT. Minutes from this session can be found in Appendix B. At 2:30 PM, in Room 161, a panel discussion on rail freight in the region was held. Panelists included Jim Klaiber from Norfolk Southern, Mike Geiger from New York State DOT, and Laurie Smellegar from the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P). Minutes from this session can be found in Appendix C. In Room 125, a panel discussion on waterborne freight was held. Panelists included Joe Riccio from the Bridgeport Port Authority, Commander John Cameron from the United States Coast Guard, and Captain Andrew McGovern from the Sandy Hook Pilots. Minutes from this session can be found in Appendix C. In Room 105, a panel discussion on using highways to move freight was held. Panelists included Peter King from New York State DOT and Paul Kazan from Target Intermodal Systems. Minutes from this session can be found in Appendix C.

The Freight Forum adjourned at the close of the 2:30 breakout sessions, approximately 3:30 PM.

Photos

Several individuals from Edwards and Kelcey took photographs throughout the event. The entire collection of digital photos has been copied onto a CD-ROM for NYMTC’s use.