January 2011 Page 1

Mohawk-Erie Multimodal Transportation Corridor Study

Meeting Summary

Central NY-Mohawk Valley Regional Project Advisory Committee

(RPAC) Meeting

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

1 p.m. – 4 p.m.

Jervis Public Library, Rome, NY

ABOUT MOHAWK-ERIE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and the New York State Thruway

Authority (NYSTA) have jointly launched a study of the Mohawk-Erie Multimodal Transportation

Corridor (referred to as the Mohawk-Erie Corridor or the Corridor). This 400-mile corridor is one of

New York State’s critical trade corridors, is important for non-business leisure travel and tourism,

and is also integral to national and international economic concerns.

The Mohawk-Erie Corridor connects major centers of commerce within and beyond New York State.

The Corridor directly serves the major metropolitan areas of Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and

Buffalo. It continues eastward to Boston and southwest to Cleveland. It connects to other corridors

for access north to Canada and south to New York City and beyond.

The study purpose is to produce a vision and a real world action plan that will enable transportation

providers in the Mohawk-Erie Corridor to effectively and efficiently address the transportation

challenges of the future. The vision and plan will be used to guide future decision-making. The plan

will be developed within a framework of several scenarios that articulate the trade-offs resulting

from each scenario. It will identify mutually supportive investments and actions that make the best

use of scarce resources.

November 10, 2010 RPAC Meeting Purpose, Agenda and Attendees

The purpose of this first meeting of the Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC was to provide key

stakeholders with information about the study process, initiate the dialogue on how transportation

can support economic development goals, and provide an opportunity for attendees to comment on

modal profile maps displayed at the meeting. Several exercises were conducted to determine the

economic sectors/engines important in the corridor and their particular transportation needs.

A copy of the agenda follows and a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached at the back of

this document. There were 24 participants at the meeting (see Table 1).

January 2011 Page 2

January 2011 Page 3

Table 1: November 10, 2010 Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC Attendance List

Status Title First Last Company Title Company

Member Mr. David Bottar Executive Director Central New York Regional Planning & Development Board

Alternate Mr. Mario Colone Principal Transportation Planner Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council

Member Ms. Dana Crisino Senior Planner City of Utica Urban and Economic Development

Member Mr. James Fayle Regional Director Central New York Region Empire State Development

Member Ms. Maureen Fellows Director of Government Relations and Institutional Planning

State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry

Member Mr. Carl Ford Regional Director New York State Department of Transportation Region 3

Member Mr. Tim Frasier Canal Engineer New York State Canal Corporation

Member Mr. Jeffrey Hopson GIS Specialist Syracuse Hancock International Airport

Member Mr. Richard Landerkin Director of Planning CENTRO

Member Mr. Harry Miller Program Manager Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study

Alternate Ms. Shelly Perrin Logistics Director Rock-Tenn

Member Mr. Jim Piccola New York State Department of Transportation

Alternate Mr. Mark Reynolds Sr. Vice President Mohawk Valley EDGE

Member Mr. Mike Smith Finger Lakes Railroad

Alternate Mr. John Stemen Director of Community Relations

District Office of Assemblywoman RoAnn M. Destito, Utica

Member Mr. Kenneth Tompkins Regional Director Mohawk Valley Regional Empire State Development

Project Team Ms. Lynn Weiskopf Mohawk-Erie Project Director New York State Department of Transportation

Project Team Mr. David Rosenberg Mohawk-Erie Project Manager New York State Department of Transportation

Project Team Mr. Anthony Longe Mohawk-Erie Project Manager New York State Thruway Authority

Project Team Ms. Melissa Zeigler Project Manager Wilbur Smith Associates

Project Team Ms. Linda Carpenter Public Outreach Coordinator Wilbur Smith Associates

Project Team Mr. Jim Levy Deputy Project Manager Wilbur Smith Associates

Project Team Ms. Carol Gould Public Outreach Program and Land Use Task Leader

Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.

Steering Committee Attendee

Mr. John Bien New York State Thruway Authority

January 2011 Page 4

How was the Meeting Rated by Participants?

Comment cards were provided to participants to rate the meeting performance. A total of 14 were

returned. In general, the overall meeting was well received (average 8.9 out of 10). Some

comments received included:

Need bigger room next time

Good to bring together the Mohawk Valley and Central New York areas for different local

perspectives

Should add an agricultural representative

Good start; if this study can agree on an understanding of the overall growth picture and

what is needed, that would be great.

5

4

3

2

1

5 7 8 9 10

Clarity of Objectives

dist

ribu

tion

of

14

resp

onse

s

rece

ived

s cores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent

avg=8.6

6

5

4

3

2

1

5 8 9 10

scores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent

Achievement of Objectives

dist

ribu

tion

of

13

resp

onse

s

rece

ived

avg=8.3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

5 8 9 10

dist

ribu

tion

of

14

resp

onse

s

rece

ived

Opportunity to Provide Input, Quality of Exercises

scores from 1-10 with 10 being excel lent

avg=8.9

January 2011 Page 5

SUMMARY OF MEETING

The meeting began with self introductions and opening remarks by Lynn Weiskopf from the New York

State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and Tony Longe from the New York State Thruway

Authority (NYSTA). The importance of a stakeholder driven process was emphasized and thanks were

given to the attendees for devoting their time and energy to this important study.

Melissa Ziegler from Wilbur Smith Associates gave a PowerPoint presentation providing information on

the study and the results of an initial strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT) analysis. The

purpose of the SWOT analysis presentation was to provide participants with an understanding about

existing conditions and activities in the corridor in order to engage in an informed discussion about how

transportation investments can support the region. A synopsis of the SWOT analysis shows:

Strengths:

• Growth in some major industry sectors

• Multimodal transportation networks

• Educational resources

• Growth in exports • Educated workforce

Weaknesses: • Declining population • Lagging job growth • Condition and age of

infrastructure • Multimodal

connectivity

Opportunities:

• Build on new technology businesses

• Continued growth in exports

• Value of multimodal connections

Threats: Increased

competitiveness and higher transportation costs

• Higher transportation costs compared to other east coast states

• Funding for transportation and economic development

Several interactive exercises were conducted to receive input on attendees views of the main economic

drivers within the corridor (now and in the future), how might they change, and the transportation

needs of these economic drivers. The following sections present the results of these exercises.

Overall SWOT Analysis

The participants were asked to review an initial listing of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and

threats, and add to it. Table 2 shows the initial list and the additional input received from the

stakeholders.

The discussion on the SWOT analysis included the following points:

1. Location of the corridor and proximity/access to Canada are strengths.

2. Access in general – within a day’s drive to many markets.

3. Abundant water resources for both industrial needs and for recreation are an asset.

4. The research capabilities of the higher education institutions are an asset.

5. As the region sits at the nexus of the upstate power grid, there is an abundant supply of energy.

6. The region is land rich with sites available for development.

January 2011 Page 6

7. The development of Marcellus Shale is an opportunity for the region as is the development of

alternative fuels.

8. A threat to growth is the “not in my backyard” attitude that can result in sprawl.

Text in bold italics was input received at the meeting

Economic Development and Transportation Discussion

This exercise was conducted in three steps:

1) Reviewing the list of key economic drivers in the corridor, adding any missing elements;

2) Identifying what these specific sectors need from the transportation system. The transportation

needs discussion focused on the characteristics (not the specific transportation mode) of the

transportation system needed to support these industries; and

3) Asking how participants would spend a blank check ($500m was used as a proxy for those who

needed an amount) to help the region’s economy in general, and then specifically on

transportation.

Table 3 is a summary of the input received on specific industry sector needs. Some key distinguishing

characteristics of the transportation systems serving these sectors, as identified by stakeholders:

More non-auto mode choice(s) with improved connectivity

Balance of freight and passenger rail use – without jeopardizing either

Concentrated development to limit sprawl and allow for viability of non-auto modes

Strength Opportunity

Growth in some major industry sectors Build on new technology businesses

Multimodal transportation networks Continued growth in exports

Educational resources (and research capabilities) Value of multimodal connections

Research capabilities – especially for health care Marcellus Shale – build on alternative fuel options

Growth in exports Syracuse Airport - could accommodate freight traffic

Educated workforce

Access to water

Land rich – many opportunity sites for development

Strategic location to markets, including Canada

Abundant supply of electricity (at nexus of NYS system)

Access to capital

Weakness Threat

Declining population Increased competitiveness and higher costs

Lagging job growth Higher transportation costs compared to other east coast states

Condition and age of infrastructure Funding for transportation and economic development

Multimodal connectivity Land Use NIMBY (not in my back yard) as it relates to siting of

transportation infrastructure – i.e. impacts of sprawl

Table 2: Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC SWOT Input

January 2011 Page 7

Text in bold italics was input received at the meeting

Table 4 summarizes the input received on how to invest to support the region’s economy. In general,

the region has a good highway system but due to the spread out nature of much of the population/land

use, transit is less viable. The number of responses that indicated transportation investment as

important even when the money did not have to be spent on transportation shows the consensus of the

critical role of transportation in supporting regional economic development.

Business Sectors Transportation Needs (general characteristics or policy issues)

Travel and tourism

Manufacturing

Professional, scientific

and technical services

Retail and wholesale

trade

Construction

Distribution centers

Agriculture, dairy, and

forestry

Banking and finance

In general

Bio-science and

pharmaceuticals

Digital and electronic

devices

Advanced manufacturing

Logistics

Environmental systems

Diagnostics and medical

devices

Marcellus shale

extraction

Table 3: Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC Economic Development and Transportation Exercise

Need good and reliable highway system; there is transit-funding shortage yet have

increased demand, especially as fuel prices rise - $4 per gallon seems to be tipping point; low-

density land use with sprawl is concern/issue

Eme

rgin

g In

du

stri

es

Need efficiency in the system to make the most of fiscal resources; both highway and rail

access essential to manufacturing transport; need to balance rail for freight with rail for

commuters

More/better transit to the Carousel Center (Mall in Syracuse) needed

Additional low-cost carrier to/from Hancock/Syracuse Airport - would support tourism;

Syracuse airport is tourist based

Opportunity for new technology/Nano-technology; highway essential to travel to work-

challenging environment for commuter transit- currently commuter access to highway is

good - not constrained

Ability to get materials to markets important. More cooperation needed from railroads.

Cooperation/coordination between modes is lacking and can be a barrier to connectivity

No specific needs were identified during the meeting; most of these emerging industries

are goods-oriented so they will have the same needs as the manufacturing sector identified

above. The transportation needs to attract employees in these sectors will be the same as

for the existing professional/scientific and technical services

Distribution centers are becoming more important - e.g. Wal-Mart/Target; need good

freight transportation system; efficiency and congestion issues on rail – future concern/need

Smart Growth land use policy is important - it would be supportive of sound economic

growth; help to sustain agriculture; but reliable energy sources to support agriculture are a

concern

Workers access to jobs is an issue for all industries. Lack of multi-modal transportation

options for workers is an issue – particularly low-income in rural areas

Exis

tin

g Ec

on

om

ic D

rive

rs

January 2011 Page 8

The discussion had a general overarching theme that for the Central NY-Mohawk Valley area:

1. There is a good highway system but the region’s density/land use make alternative modes less

viable except in the densest urban areas.

2. Need to balance the importance of freight rail operations with improved passenger rail – need

to provide for both.

3. Urban sprawl is a concern.

4. Maintenance of existing infrastructure is a priority.

How This Information Will Be Used – As the study moves forward, the information from this meeting will

be used to help:

Assist in the development of varying assumptions about the future and thinking about the

impacts of these future scenarios on various economic sectors – with a focus on how this would

affect future transportation needs;

Provide a framework for evaluating strategies/improvements across modal sectors; and

Inform the selection of strategy types (e.g., state of good repair, connectivity improvements,

targeted capacity, information systems, regulatory or legal changes) that would respond to

corridor needs.

Examples of future scenarios may include:

How will economic and transportation choices be affected if resources are limited or potentially

inadequate to maintain road and bridge infrastructure?

How will such choices vary under changing conditions (e.g., development of the Marcellus

Shale? Development of alternative energy? Significant increases in fuel/travel costs? If

Investments to Support Regional Economy Transportation Investments to Support Regional Economy

I-81 Viaduct improvements in downtown Syracuse I-81 Viaduct improvements in downtown Syracuse

Job creation/development Rail infrastructure - both passenger and freight

Nano technologyPreserve/stabilize current infrastructure (state of good

repair - especially for highways)

Rail infrastructure Erie Canal dredging and intermodal connections

Preserve/stabilize current infrastructure Connectivity

Infrastructure for business - water, sewer, power

grid, broadbandLow cost air carrier

Development in villagesMore non-auto transport - improved connectivity to

airport, universities

Quality of life Integrate trails

Address sprawl Prioritize investment - what can we afford

Manufacturing and tourism campaigns/marketing

central NY as investment grows

Table 4: Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC Investment Suggestions

January 2011 Page 9

additional technologies were to become available? If additional resources are available? If

significant greenhouse gas reductions are mandated? )

The information received from stakeholders will help us understand which sectors will be most affected,

and what viable transportation alternatives would or could be available to support the economic

competitiveness of the region.

Review of RPAC Questionnaire

Prior to the meeting, RPAC members were provided a link to an on-line survey that allowed them to

identify strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/threats and other relevant issues. An overall summary of

how important specific transportation factors were to questionnaire respondents was reviewed with the

group. Table 5 indicates the summary for all four RPACs.

Table 5: RPAC Questionnaire Summary – Critical Transportation Issues

Bottlenecks and congestion

Safety hot spots

Major maintenance issues

Weather-related issues

Lack of access to highways

Lack of access to freight rail

Lack of access to passenger rail

Lack of access to regional transit

Lack of access to air modes

Lack of access to water modes

Lack/shortage of bicycle and

pedestrian facilities and networks

Sprawl development

o

+

+

o

+

+

o

_

o

o o

o

_

_

+

+

o

o

significant

moderately significant

_moderate

minimally moderate

minimal

Capital District/

Eastern NY

Central NY/ Mohawk Valley

Genesee/ Finger Lakes

Western NY

Transportation Issue

+

_

+

+

o

o

o

_

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

_

+

+

o

o

o

o

_

+

+

+

o

o

+

o

_

_

+

_

o

+

+

o

+

+

o

_

o

o o

o

_

_

Number of respondents:Capital District/Eastern NY: 9Central NY/Mohawk Valley: 6

Genesee/Finger Lakes: 8Western NY: 9

January 2011 Page 10

Mapping Exercise Participants were asked to make comments on specific corridor issues using sticky dots, comment cards,

and enlarged maps of the corridor. Table 6 is a summary of the comments received. These comments

supported many of the issues noted in earlier discussions by noting specific examples for improvements.

For example, the opportunity to barge agriculture goods to New York City markets, Port of Oswego

improvements, double tracking rail, expansion of rail yards, and specific trail connection improvements

all point to non-auto oriented improvements. However, some specific enhancements to the highway

system were noted as well including I-81/Rt 90 interchange improvements and north-south arterial in

Utica area among others.

Area Mode Comment

Could support economic development in municipal area (for example: Syracuse Inner Harbor, Utica Harbor, other

village development)

Could be used for recreation including trails

could be used for freight transport with intermodal connections

Multi-modal-

energy

The study should consider implementing renewable energy and sustainable practiced no matter whet direction the

study takes; use of renewable fuels and alternative fuels could be encouraged

Multi-modal-

agriculture

Agriculture and dairy industries in NY are in decline but have potential to rebound. Better transportation to bring

locally grown and NYS foods to large NYC markets on a timely basis is key. There should be a lower cost, efficient and

reliable way to invigorate NY agriculture and bring important products to a willing market

Land use

Land use is important. Considering the environmental impact of recommendations is also important. There can be a

balance.

Highway/rail Oswego port - improve rail and road access at port to increase activity

Port Port of Oswego improvements

Rome Multi-modal Consider needs of Rome business park

Rome Air Airport, Oneida County - continue investments in terminal, customs, hanger facilities in their long range plan

I-81/I-90 interchange congestion

I-81 city of Syracuse viaduct improvements

I-81/I-90 interchange - ensure the design of this does not negatively impact truck transport

Interstate 81 through Syracuse. How will replacement impact community

Rail Dewitt freight yard needs direct connection to I-90

Intermodal Expansion of CSX rail yard or property in close proximity

Airport - increase commercial service with low cost carrier

Need low cost carrier at Syracuse Airport

North of

Syracuse Site access Local/regional desire to develop site as business park

Convert Rt 12 arterial to surface road with traffic circles, walkways, bike paths, pedestrian bridges, neighborhood

linkages

Lack of limited access multi-lane highway through Utica

Need for north-south arterial

Improvements needed on Rtes 5, 8 and 12

Utica needs a rail to truck multimodal node - also consider future access to canal

Improvement to Union Station passenger/freight yard

Frequent delays of passenger trains from Utica to New York City

Should have direct rail manufacturing sites that eliminate use of highway connections to move goods

Trail Final connection of the bike trail thru NYS - this is the missing link to connect a recreational resource across the state

High speed EZ Pass for URE

I-84--extend NYS840 from its NW terminus to NYS 233 (along Sutliff-Judd Rd corridor)

High speed EZ Pass at NY 49 and I-90 (west of Utica exit 31)

Move Thruway Exit 32 (Westmoreland) east to point where Judd Road (840) crosses Thruway or at least put EZ pass

exit at Judd/840

Trail Lack of connections to recreational resources both north and south of the highway resources

South of Utica Highway Lack of north-south four-lane highway connecting the North Country through Utica to the southern tier

East of Utica Trail Need for ped/bike in Mohawk area

Capital area Rail Double track Empire Corridor Schenectady to Albany

Utica

Highway

Intermodal

Rail

West of UticaHighway

Table 6: Central NY-Mohawk Valley RPAC Mapping Exercise Comments

Areawide

Canal

Oswego

Syracuse

Highway

Air

January 2011 Page 11

Conclusions and Next Steps

The participants reconvened after the mapping exercise to receive final comments/instructions before

departing. These included:

Next meeting will be in Spring 2011

Meeting information will be available through a SharePoint site (attendees will be provided with

access information via e-mail)

Reminder to please fill out the RPAC questionnaire if they had not done so previously

(www.surveymonkey.com/s/N56P9YT)

Visit the web site (www.nysdot.gov/mohawk-erie-study)

January 2011 Page 12

Slide 1

Mohawk-Erie Multimodal

Transportation Corridor Study

Central-Mohawk Valley Region

Project Advisory Committee

November 10, 2010

Slide

5 Objective of This

Meeting

• To identify what the key existing andemerging businesses are in theregion

• What are their transportation needs

Slide

2 Welcome and

Introductions

• Announcements – Linda Carpenter• Committee Introductions• Welcome – Lynn Weiskopf, NYSDOT

Anthony Longe, NYSTA• Presentation – WSA Team

Slide

6 Regional Project Advisory

Committee Role

• Provide input and guidance based on

your knowledge and expertise• Assess issues and opportunities from

a regional perspective• Help develop a “real world”

implementation plan

Slide

3

3

Slide

7 Why the Corridor is

Important?• Important Corridor for intra-state and

interstate transportation• Vital for freight and trade• International connections via rail, water,air, and highway

• Transportation assets planned, owned, &operated by range of organizations

• Tourism and recreation

Slide

4 Purpose of Study

• Understanding future transportation needs tosupport economic development and livable communities

• Vision for Corridor, role of transportation inachieving that vision

• Real implementation addressing transportation challenges within fiscal realities

• Identify investments, actions, policies making bestuse of scarce resources

Slide

8 Global Perspective

• Increasing volumes into east coast ports

• 2008 over 25% of U.S. GDP wasinternational trade

• In 5 years BIC accounts for 25% worldGDP, U.S. exports to them increased 121% from 2003 - 2008

• U.S. world’s leading manufacturer, $3.9trillion in 2008

January 2011 Page 13

Slide

9 Central-Mohawk Valley

SWOT Analysis

Strengths:• Growth in some major industry sectors• Multimodal transportation networks• Educational resources• Growth in exports• Educated workforce

Slide

11 SWOT Findings

Opportunities:• Build on new technology businesses • Continued growth in exports • Value of multimodal connections

Slide

10 SWOT Findings

Weaknesses:• Declining population

• Lagging job growth• Condition and age of infrastructure• Multimodal connectivity

Slide

12 SWOT Findings

Threats:• Increased competitiveness and higher

costs• Higher transportation costs compared to

other east coast states• Funding for transportation and economicdevelopment

Slide

13

January 2011 Page 14

Slide

14

Slide

15

Bottlenecks and congestion

Safety hot spots

Major maintenance issues

Weather-related issues

Lack of access to highways

Lack of access to freight rail

Lack of access to passenger rail

Lack of access to regional transit

Lack of access to air modes

Lack of access to water modes

Lack/shortage of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and networks

Sprawl development

o

+

+

o

+

+

o

_

o

o o

o

_

_

+

+

o

o

significant

moderately significant

_moderate

minimally moderate

minimal

Capital District/

Eastern NY

Central NY/ Mohawk Valley

Genesee/ Finger Lakes

Western NY

Transportation Issue

+

_

+

+

o

o

o

_

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

_

+

+

o

o

o

o

_

+

+

+

o

o

+

o

_

_

+

_

o

+

+

o

+

+

o

_

o

o o

o

_

_

January 2011 Page 15

Slide

16 Next Steps

• How to stay in touchSharePointWebsite

• Other people who should beinvolved in this study

• Complete Questionnaire• Next meeting in early 2011

Slide

17 Mohawk-Erie Study

Website

www.NYSDOT.gov/mohawk-erie-study