nymtc regional freight plan - New York Metropolitan Transportation ...
nymtc regional freight plan - New York Metropolitan Transportation ... nymtc regional freight plan - New York Metropolitan Transportation ...
A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region The Highway System package produces no change in regional VMT. This is not surprising since this alternative is not designed to divert truck trips to rail (as both of the other packages do), but rather to better accommodate forecasted freight truck trips. It does produce a small increase in VMT (0.4 percent) in the NYMTC region and a small decrease (0.3 percent) in New Jersey. Since all of the improvement projects are in the NYMTC region, this alternative results in some marginal diversion of freight truck routing from New Jersey to the NYMTC region. The test of whether this route diversion has overall positive or negative impacts can be determined by comparing the increase in demand to the improvements in capacity and operations as described in the Roadway Impact section. However, it is interesting to note that this alternative does result in a small reduction in regional VHT of 0.3 percent in the region as a whole, in New Jersey, and in the NYMTC region. Thus, even though there is a 0.4 percent increase in NYMTC freight truck VMT, there is still a reduction in VHT of 0.3 percent, implying a net improvement in highway operations related to freight truck movement. On a regional basis this level of reduction in VHT is small and comparable to what is achieved by the Policy package. However, there may be more significant localized impacts where specific physical improvements are made to the highway system as described in the Roadway Impact section. It is interesting to compare these forecasted changes in commodity truck VMT and VHT to the changes in all truck VMT and VHT. Commodity trucks represent a small portion (25-30 percent) of total truck VMT and VHT in the region. As shown in the summary table (Table 6.3), an examination of the changes in total truck VMT and VHT produces a somewhat different picture. Non-commodity trucks are more difficult to influence through planning efforts because their behavior is less predictable. Therefore, the analysis of the impact on all trucks was not the focus of the study. Nevertheless, these findings provide some additional context for interpreting the impact on commodity trucks discussed above. Table 6.3 Change in Total Truck VMT and VHT Alternative VMT Reduction VHT Reduction Baseline 0 0 Policy 0 0.14% Highway -0.02% 0.31% Rail 0.96% 0.88% Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-5
A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region The Policy package still has a minimal impact and the Rail package still has the largest impact. However, the differential between the Rail package and the other packages is not as great as it was when only commodity trucks were analyzed because the Rail package diverts some freight from truck to rail but has no impact on the larger universe of truck trips. Conversely, the Highway package still results in an increase in total truck VMT but now has a more significant impact on truck VHT relative to the Policy and Rail packages. This is because all trucks benefit from the highway improvements included in this package. Expanding the universe of vehicles further to include all vehicles (trucks, autos, buses, etc.) dilutes the merits of and distinctions between the alternative packages among a much greater pool of traffic, and does not generate a meaningful comparison. The analysis of user and system benefits below provides a better comparison of the impact on all travelers and vehicles. Tables 6.4 and 6.5 disaggregate the non-commodity truck trips into the same geographic subregions as previously presented for commodity truck trips in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. Because there are more than twice as many non-commodity truck trips as commodity truck trips, the percentage changes are much smaller. All of the changes are less than one percent at the subregional level although some individual counties [Queens, Richmond, Fairfield (Connecticut), and Hudson (New Jersey)] would experience larger reductions in VHT, primarily in the Highway package. These areas reflect the localized impacts of the more significant physical improvements included in the Highway package. These include the Highbridge Interchange reconstruction, continuous service roads on the Cross Bronx and Staten Island Expressways, the Clearview Expressway extension to JFK, and the Goethals Bridge capacity expansion. Clearly, the most significant subregional improvement in non-freight truck VHT occurs in NYC in the Highway package. The impact of the Rail and Policy packages on non-freight trucks trips is minimal. The Highway package does result in an overall net increase in non-freight truck VMT of 0.3 percent in the NYMTC region versus a 0.1 percent reduction in northern New Jersey. In conclusion, it is important to note that the benefits of the Rail package are most significant when only freight transportation is considered, while the benefits of the Highway package are most significant when all truck transportation is considered. Therefore, while the Rail package can be judged by its impact on freight transportation alone, the Highway package should be evaluated as part of a larger regional transportation strategy impacting all truck traffic. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-6
- Page 59 and 60: Table 5.1 Actions by Goals and Stra
- Page 61 and 62: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 63 and 64: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 65 and 66: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 67 and 68: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 69 and 70: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 71 and 72: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 73 and 74: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 75: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 78 and 79: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 80 and 81: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 82 and 83: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 84 and 85: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 86 and 87: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 88 and 89: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 90 and 91: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 92: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 95: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 98 and 99: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 100 and 101: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 102 and 103: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 104 and 105: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 106 and 107: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 108 and 109: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 112 and 113: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 114 and 115: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 116 and 117: Table 6.7 Summary of Anticipated En
- Page 118 and 119: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 120 and 121: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 122 and 123: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 124 and 125: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
- Page 126: A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region
A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region<br />
The Highway System package produces no change in <strong>regional</strong> VMT. This is not<br />
surprising since this alternative is not designed to divert truck trips to rail (as both of the<br />
other packages do), but rather to better accommodate forecasted <strong>freight</strong> truck trips. It<br />
does produce a small increase in VMT (0.4 percent) in the NYMTC region and a small<br />
decrease (0.3 percent) in <strong>New</strong> Jersey. Since all of the improvement projects are in the<br />
NYMTC region, this alternative results in some marginal diversion of <strong>freight</strong> truck routing<br />
from <strong>New</strong> Jersey to the NYMTC region. The test of whether this route diversion has overall<br />
positive or negative impacts can be determined by comparing the increase in demand<br />
to the improvements in capacity and operations as described in the Roadway Impact section.<br />
However, it is interesting to note that this alternative does result in a small reduction<br />
in <strong>regional</strong> VHT of 0.3 percent in the region as a whole, in <strong>New</strong> Jersey, and in the NYMTC<br />
region. Thus, even though there is a 0.4 percent increase in NYMTC <strong>freight</strong> truck VMT,<br />
there is still a reduction in VHT of 0.3 percent, implying a net improvement in highway<br />
operations related to <strong>freight</strong> truck movement. On a <strong>regional</strong> basis this level of reduction<br />
in VHT is small and comparable to what is achieved by the Policy package. However,<br />
there may be more significant localized impacts where specific physical improvements are<br />
made to the highway system as described in the Roadway Impact section.<br />
It is interesting to compare these forecasted changes in commodity truck VMT and VHT to<br />
the changes in all truck VMT and VHT. Commodity trucks represent a small portion<br />
(25-30 percent) of total truck VMT and VHT in the region. As shown in the summary<br />
table (Table 6.3), an examination of the changes in total truck VMT and VHT produces a<br />
somewhat different picture. Non-commodity trucks are more difficult to influence<br />
through <strong>plan</strong>ning efforts because their behavior is less predictable. Therefore, the analysis<br />
of the impact on all trucks was not the focus of the study. Nevertheless, these findings<br />
provide some additional context for interpreting the impact on commodity trucks discussed<br />
above.<br />
Table 6.3<br />
Change in Total Truck VMT and VHT<br />
Alternative VMT Reduction VHT Reduction<br />
Baseline 0 0<br />
Policy 0 0.14%<br />
Highway -0.02% 0.31%<br />
Rail 0.96% 0.88%<br />
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-5
Change language