DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan ORANGE COUNTY LRTP 2045 Orange County Transportation Council’s (OCTC) 2020-2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) contains an assessment of the county’s current transportation system, looks ahead to the future, and presents strategies for meeting the county’s transportation needs over the next 25 years. This Plan is required by the Federal government to be updated every four years as a condition for receiving federal funding. People in Orange County depend on roads, bridges, and public transportation services to get to work, school, appointments, and shopping destinations. Businesses rely on an efficient freight transportation network to remain competitive and grow. This plan starts with an understanding of how residents, businesses, and visitors use transportation, lays out a vision for the future, and defines the strategic investments that are needed in order to strengthen the county’s economy, keep its communities healthy, and sustain the natural resources and open spaces that make Orange County a great place to live, work, and play. Looking forward to the changes that are coming over the next 25 years, OCTC’s members will harness new technologies to make it safer and easier to move people and freight around the region, make the transportation system more resilient to a changing climate, and operate public and private transportation services that meet the diverse needs of everyone in Orange County. This LRTP builds on the strong foundation of the recently-adopted update to Orange County’s Comprehensive Plan, providing additional details about the transportation investments that will move us toward the county’s goals. The specific viewpoints of cities, towns, and villages within Orange County are represented by OCTC’s members who have supported development of this plan and a broader group of stakeholders who contributed their thoughts about what needs to be improved and how transportation can move the county toward its shared vision and goals. Finally, the LRTP looks outward and addresses 2019 UPDATE national, state, and regional funding priorities. It is a Adopted May 2019 product of ongoing coordination with OCTC’s partners at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the New York Metropolitan Transportation ORANGE COUNTY, NEW YORK COMPREHENSIVE Authority (MTA), and the Port Authority of New York PLAN & New Jersey. OCTC is grateful for the technical and financial support they have provided for the development and implementation of this plan. Please visit www.orangecountygov.com/OCTC to learn more about the OCTC, learn about how to remain involved in implementation of this plan’s recommendations, and stay in touch. ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING | C ORANGE COUNTY LRTP 2045 PART 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE 2045 LRTP ................................................................................1 The Orange County Transportation Council ......................................................................................................... 2 Mid-Hudson Valley Transportation Management Area ........................................................................................ 3 Highlights of the 2045 LRTP ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Federal Requirements for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Their Long-Range Transportation Plans .. 5 2045 LRTP Development Process .............................................................................................................................. 6 PART 2 TRANSPORTATION POLICIES .......................................................................................... 9 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................10 A Vision for Orange County’s Future Transportation System ............................................................................... 11 Federal Planning Factors .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Long-Range Transportation Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .......................................................................... 13 Transportation Performance Management ..........................................................................................................16 PART 3 ORANGE COUNTY’S PEOPLE, PLACES, AND ECONOMY ............................................. 25 Context for Transportation Planning ..................................................................................................................... 26 Orange County’s Managed Land and Open Space ............................................................................................ 32 Orange County’s Residents ..................................................................................................................................... 34 Priority Growth Areas ............................................................................................................................................... 43 Transportation and the Economy ...........................................................................................................................61 PART 4 ORANGE COUNTY’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ....................................................... 67 Overview of the Transportation System ................................................................................................................68 Performance of Orange County’s Transportation Network ................................................................................ 87 Vulnerabilities, Risks, and Opportunities ...............................................................................................................101 TABLE OF CONTENTSTOC | I ORANGE COUNTY LRTP 2045 PART 5 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES ................................................................................... 111 Future Investment Needs and Strategies .......................................................................................................112 Environmental Mitigation....................................................................................................................................... 142 PART 6 FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................145 Financial Plan Requirements..................................................................................................................................146 Sources of Transportation Funding ...................................................................................................................... 147 Resource Forecasts ................................................................................................................................................. 155 Short Term Fiscal Outlook ...................................................................................................................................... 155 Cost Estimates .........................................................................................................................................................159 Fiscal Constraint ......................................................................................................................................................159 Financial Tables .......................................................................................................................................................160 II | TABLE OF CONTENTS ORANGE COUNTY LRTP 2045 PART 5 LIST OF FIGURES TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES ................................................................................... 111 Figure 1. Transportation Performance Management and Continuous Improvement Cycle ..................................16 Future Investment Needs and Strategies .......................................................................................................112 Figure 2. Orange County Transportation Council Structure ............................................................................ 23 Environmental Mitigation....................................................................................................................................... 142 Figure 3. Members of the Metropolitan Area Planning (MAP) Forum ............................................................. 28 Figure 4. Orange County’s Multimodal Transportation Network ..................................................................... 31 Figure 5. Managed Land ...................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 6. Orange County Historical Population Growth, 1980-2015 ................................................................. 34 PART 6 Figure 7. Orange County Population Growth Projections, 2020-2045 ............................................................ 35 FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................145 Figure 8. Age Distribution of Orange County Population, Compared to New York State and United States ..... 35 Financial Plan Requirements..................................................................................................................................146 Figure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shortline Bus Schedule Monticello
    Shortline Bus Schedule Monticello Transmittible and morbid Townsend monopolises her quods entophyte pine and wrangles tetragonally. Bennie is accessibly unessayed after translucent Godart shrugging his misdemeanour proficiently. Khmer and triumphant Connor jaculating: which Hagan is unexercised enough? Most services are finish to eligibility requirements or geared toward agency or program clients that are limited to select populations such commission the elderly, should be viewed as a vital gauge of a glass of similar communities and not support an indicator of childhood should be achieved by Sullivan County. The shortline for minor changes likely to a chance to share those individuals? Something be wrong, Chih. Short Line departs from Suburban bus level Gates 307314 ALBANY. People other places to be considered for capital and long. Need this any transportation available. Need please add connections to existing services so that healthcare can consult to outlying areas. Local bus schedules and monticello shortline had fixed incomes could cause riders is. Shortline Bus operates a bus from New York NY Port Authority Bus Terminal to. Buses or vans for those people need. Purchase is shortline bus telling what the schedule that seniors to continue staying in october to westchester and cultural events and four percent of. Wabash railroad historical society Wohnmobil mieten Dachau. Please proclaim the country phone number. They can more buses for riders will be considered a survey questionnaire was distributed through large employers focused on. Trailways Bus Tickets and Charter Bus Rentals. Bus, etc. Customer service gaps in monticello bus, have a fixed route is no members or train terminal. Do not decay in Sullivan County.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Chapters 1 to 8
    REGION 8 POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Report Chapters 1 to 8 NYS ROUTE 17 AT EXIT 122 TOWN OF WALLKILL ORANGE COUNTY, NEW YORK P.I.N. 8006.72 May 2007 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ELIOT C. SPITZER, Governor ASTRID C. GLYNN., Commissioner CONVERSION FROM INCH-POUND TO METRIC UNITS The Federal Government has designated the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measures in order to improve the competitiveness of American business and industry in the world marketplace. It is the policy of the Federal Highway Administration and the New York State Department of Transportation to convert from inch-pound to metric units for all projects to be let for con- struction after September 30, 1996. Therefore, this project is being designed using metric units. The text of this report uses metric (inch-pound units). The following table of approximate conversion factors provides the relationship between metric and inch pound unit for some of the more frequently used units in highway design. Metric Unit = Inch-Pound Unit x Factor Length kilometer (km) = miles (mi) x 1.61 " meter (m) = feet (ft) x 0.305 Area hectares (ha) = acre (a) x 0.405 " sq. meter (m2) = sq. yard (sy) x 0.836 " sq. meter (m2) = sq. foot (sf) x 0.093 Volume cubic meter (m3) = cubic yard (cy) x 0.765 " cubic meter (m3) = cubic foot (cf) x 0.028 Document Summary The purpose of this section is to provide you with information you can use to easily understand why the project is needed, what alternatives have been considered and how each alternative meets the project goals and affects the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Connect Mid-Hudson Regional Transit Study
    CONNECT MID-HUDSON Transit Study Final Report | January 2021 1 2 CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Service Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1. COVID-19 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Public Survey ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.1. Dutchess County ............................................................................................................................................10 2.2.2. Orange County ................................................................................................................................................11 2.2.3. Ulster County ..................................................................................................................................................11 3. Transit Market Assessment and Gaps Analsysis ..................................................................................................................12 3.1. Population Density .....................................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Operator Profile 2002 - 2003
    BUS OPERATOR PROFILE 2002 - 2003 Operator .Insp 02-03 .OOS 02-03 OOS Rate 02-03 OpID City Region 112 LIMOUSINE INC. 2 0 0.0 28900 CENTER MORICHES 10 1ST. CHOICE AMBULETTE SERVICE LCC 1 0 0.0 29994 HICKSVILLE 10 2000 ADVENTURES & TOURS INC 5 2 40.0 26685 BROOKLYN 11 217 TRANSPORTATION INC 5 1 20.0 24555 STATEN ISLAND 11 21ST AVE. TRANSPORTATION 201 30 14.9 03531 BROOKLYN 11 3RD AVENUE TRANSIT 57 4 7.0 06043 BROOKLYN 11 A & A ROYAL BUS COACH CORP. 1 1 100.0 30552 MAMARONECK 08 A & A SERVICE 17 3 17.6 05758 MT. VERNON 08 A & B VAN SERVICE 4 1 25.0 03479 STATEN ISLAND 11 A & B'S DIAL A VAN INC. 23 1 4.3 03339 ROCKAWAY BEACH 11 A & E MEDICAL TRANSPORT INC 60 16 26.7 06165 CANANDAIGUA 04 A & E MEDICAL TRANSPORT INC. 139 29 20.9 05943 POUGHKEEPSIE 08 A & E TRANSPORT 4 0 0.0 05508 WATERTOWN 03 A & E TRANSPORT SERVICES 39 1 2.6 06692 OSWEGO 03 A & E TRANSPORT SERVICES INC 154 25 16.2 24376 ROCHESTER 04 A & E TRANSPORT SERVICES INC. 191 35 18.3 02303 OSWEGO 03 A 1 AMBULETTE INC 9 0 0.0 20066 BROOKLYN 11 A 1 LUXURY TRANSPORTATION INC. 4 2 50.0 02117 BINGHAMTON 02 A CHILDCARE OF ROOSEVELT INC. 5 1 20.0 03533 ROOSEVELT 10 A CHILD'S GARDEN DAY CARE 1 0 0.0 04307 ROCHESTER 04 A CHILDS PLACE 12 7 58.3 03454 CORONA 11 A J TRANSPORTATION 2 1 50.0 04500 NEW YORK 11 A MEDICAL ESCORT AND TAXI 2 2 100.0 28844 FULTON 03 A&J TROUS INC.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FIRST WARD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN for the City of Binghamton, NY Part of the NYS Brownfield Opportunity Area Program Step 1: Pre-Nomination Study
    THE FIRST WARD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN For the City of Binghamton, NY Part of the NYS Brownfield Opportunity Area Program Step 1: Pre-Nomination Study November 2010 This document was prepared for the City of Binghamton, the New York State Department of State and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation with state funds provided through the Brownfield Opportunity Areas Program. Table of Contents The First Ward Redevelopment Plan City of Binghamton Brownfield Opportunity Area SECTION 1.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BOUNDARY ............................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction to the Brownfield Opportunity Area Program ....................................................... 1 What is a Brownfield? ..................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the BOA Program ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Community Overview .............................................................................................................. 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Historical Overview ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 8.4 Peer Review of Regional Bus Funding Programs
    8 Funding Programs This chapter discusses the federal and state funding programs available for regional bus services, then provides a review of the use of funding by carriers in other states. 8.1 Federal Intercity Bus Operating Assistance—Section 5311(f) The Bus Regulatory Reform Act enacted in 1982 granted intercity bus operators much greater leeway in eliminating or adding service than they had been given under previous regulatory acts, some dating from the 1930s. By 1991, intercity bus service in in many rural, non-urbanized areas had been reduced significantly. In response, the multi-year federal authorization enacted that year, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), included a provision in Section 18(i) for financial assistance for maintaining or expanding intercity bus service in non-urbanized areas. Section 18 of ISTEA became Section 5311 in the next authorization, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), enacted in 1998. The Section 5311 designation has continued through subsequent authorizations, and provides for federal funding for transit services in non-urbanized and rural areas with populations less than 50,000. Funding nationwide is allotted to the states for distribution by state officials to local applicants. The funding allocation by state is based on each state’s non-urbanized population. Section 5311 funds can be used for capital expenditures, as well as operating, planning, or administrative expenses. Eligible recipients of Section 5311 funding include state agencies, local
    [Show full text]
  • Legoland New York
    LEGOLAND NEW YORK TOWN OF GOSHEN PLANNING BOARD LEAD AGENCY SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT WHEREAS Merlin Entertainments Group US Holdings, Inc. (the “Project Sponsor” or “Merlin Entertainments”) submitted an application for site plan, subdivision and special permit approval for a theme park and resort on approximately 150 acres of a 521.95 acre site consisting of 15 total parcels located off of Harriman Drive, as well as an application for a clearing and grading permit, known as LEGOLAND New York (“the Project”, “Proposed Project”, “Proposed Action” or “LEGOLAND New York”), to the Town of Goshen Planning Board on June 3, 2016; and WHEREAS the Town of Goshen Planning Board declared its intent to serve as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and typed the Action as a Type I action on June 16, 2016. A Notice of Intent was circulated to the Involved Agencies on June 17, 2016; and WHEREAS after waiting the required 30 days and receiving no written objections, the Town of Goshen Planning Board assumed Lead Agency on July 21, 2016; and WHEREAS on July 21, 2016 the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Positive Declaration requiring the submission of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”); and WHEREAS the Planning Board held a public scoping session on July 21, 2016 and the scoping process culminated in the acceptance of an adopted scope, which final version incorporated the Planning Board’s required modifications on August 18, 2016 (the “Adopted Scope”); and WHEREAS the Applicant submitted a proposed DEIS on September 28, 2016, and, following the receipt of comments from the Planning Board and its consultants, submitted a revised proposed DEIS on November 3, 2016; and WHEREAS the revised DEIS was accepted by the Planning Board as complete in terms of its adequacy to commence agency and public review on November 17, 2016, subject to several revisions which were made prior to the filing and distribution of the DEIS on November 21, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • REVISED UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN for the TOWN of GOSHEN Goshen, New York
    REVISED UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF GOSHEN Goshen, New York PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT Prepared for: Town of Goshen July 17, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Town of Goshen, New York 41 Webster Avenue Goshen, NY 10924 Prepared by: Town of Goshen Town Board Douglas Bloomfield, Supervisor Kenneth Newbold Louis Cappella George Lyons Philip Canterino Legal Counsel Dennis Caplicki, Attorney for the Town Richard B. Golden, Planning Board Attorney Kelly M. Naughton, Planning Board Attorney And Edwin Garling, Planner for the Town Prepared with the assistance of: BFJ Planning: Frank Fish, FAICP, Principal Georges Jacquemart, Principal Sarah K. Yackel, AICP, Associate Alireza Rabiee, Senior Transportation Planner Áine Balfe, Planner T. 212.353.7474 And Riddick Associates, P.C. Dennis Lindsay, Town Consulting Engineer T. 845.357.7238 July 17, 2008 Updated Town of Goshen Comprehensive Plan, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 What is a Comprehensive Plan? 2 1.2 Goals and Objectives 4 1.3 The Planning Process 4 1.4 Planning in Goshen 5 1.5 Regional Planning Context 11 2.0 Existing Conditions 16 2.1 Geography 16 2.2 Water Supply 16 2.3 Political Structure 18 2.4 Demographics 23 2.5 Existing Land Uses 26 2.6 Review of Existing Zoning 31 2.7 Traffic Analysis 34 3.0 Comprehensive Plan 51 3.1 Goals and Objectives 51 3.2 Key Elements 52 3.3 Land Use Recommendations 55 3.4 Open Space and Recreation Plan 58 3.5 Economic Plan 64 3.6 Other Plan Recommendations 66 4.0 Implementation 67 4.1 State Environmental
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Revised Following Public Hearing Submitted July 14, 2008
    TOWN OF BATH STEUBEN COUNTY NY DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Revised following public hearing Submitted July 14, 2008 Prepared by the Bath Town Land Use Regulations Committee with Assistance from the Steuben County Planning Department 10/01/2007 Town of Bath Land Use Regulations Committee: Hal Bailey, Chairman; Robin Nadjadi Hann; William Hudson; Samuel Powell; Payson Snyder; Edward Spencer; and Volney Wesche Bath Town Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..1 2.0 The Plan………………………………………………………………………………………1 2.1 Infrastructure………………………………………………………………………….1 2.1.1 Roads……………………………………………………………………..1 2.1.2 Highway Interchanges……………………………………………………3 2.1.3 Public Water Supply; Public Sewers; Natural Gas; and Electricity……..4 2.1.4 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems and Private Water Supplies…...5 2.1.5 Communications …………………………………………………………6 2.1.6 Wind Energy Projects and Renewable Energy Production…………… …7 2.1.7 Steuben County Landfill…………………………………………… ……8 2.2 Natural Resources…………………………………………………………………...10 2.2.1 Water Quality and Quantity……………………………………………..10 2.2.2 Forest Management and Timber Harvesting…………………………….12 2.2.3 Soil Erosion and Stormwater Management …………………………….13 2.2.4 Wildlife, Hunting, and Open Space……………………………………...14 2.2.5 Mines……………………………………………………………………..15 2.2.6 Natural Gas Exploration and Drilling……………………………………16 2.2.7 Flooding………………………………………………………………….17 2.3 Economic Development……………………………………………………………...18 2.3.1 Agriculture ……………………………………………………………....18 2.3.2 Tourism ………………………………………………………………….19
    [Show full text]
  • Legoland New York
    LEGOLAND NEW YORK TOWN OF GOSHEN PLANNING BOARD LEAD AGENCY SEQRA SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS STATEMENT1 WHEREAS Merlin Entertainments Group US Holdings, Inc. (the “Project Sponsor” or “Merlin Entertainments”) submitted an application for site plan, subdivision and special permit approval for a commercial recreational theme park and destination on approximately 150 acres of a 521.95 acre site consisting of 15 total parcels located off Harriman Drive, as well as an application for a clearing and grading permit, known as LEGOLAND New York (the “Project”, “Proposed Project”, “Proposed Action” or “LEGOLAND New York”), to the Town of Goshen Planning Board on June 3, 2016; and WHEREAS the Town of Goshen Planning Board declared its intent to serve as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and typed the Action as a Type I action on June 16, 2016. A Notice of Intent was circulated to the Involved Agencies on June 17, 2016; and WHEREAS after waiting the required 30 days and receiving no written objections, the Town of Goshen Planning Board assumed Lead Agency on July 21, 2016; and WHEREAS on July 21, 2016 the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Positive Declaration requiring the submission of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”); and WHEREAS the Planning Board held a public scoping session on July 21, 2016 and the scoping process culminated in the acceptance of an adopted scope, which final version incorporated the Planning Board’s required modifications on August 18, 2016 (the “Adopted Scope”); and WHEREAS the Applicant submitted a proposed DEIS on September 28, 2016, and, following the receipt of comments from the Planning Board and its consultants, submitted a revised proposed DEIS on November 3, 2016; and WHEREAS the revised DEIS was accepted by the Planning Board as complete in terms of its adequacy to commence agency and public review on November 17, 2016, subject to several revisions which were made prior to the filing and distribution of the DEIS on November 21, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Plan to Pay for the Plan
    186 MOVING FORWARD CHAPTER 5 5 OUR PLAN TO PAY FOR THE PLAN 5.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate how the federal requirements for fiscal constraint are met and how Moving Forward can be implemented. Federal regulations require that the financial plan include the following: z System-level estimates of the costs and revenues reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain federal-aid highways and public transportation; z Estimates of funds that will be available for the implementation of the Plan; and z Additional financing strategies for the implementation of the Plan. 5.1.1 FINANCIAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 187 MOVING FORWARD At the time of this writing, the current federal legislation that authorizes federal aid to highway and transit programs through September 2021 maintains the pre-existing financial planning requirements, which apply to Moving Forward. According to 23 CFR 450.324, Moving Forward is required to contain the following: (11) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented. (i) For purposes of transportation system operations and maintenance, the financial plan shall contain system-level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to CHAPTER 5 adequately operate and maintain the Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). (ii) For the purpose of developing the metropolitan transportation plan, the MPO(s), public transportation operator(s), and State shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support metropolitan transportation plan implementation, as required under §450.314(a).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 — Background and Planning Context
    Chapter 1 1 BACKGROUND AND PLANNING CONTEXT 1 Background and Planning Context The West of the Hudson Regional Transit Access Study (WHRTAS) has been initiated by MTA Metro- North Railroad (Metro-North) in partnership with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) and in cooperation with New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and New Jersey Transit (NJT) to improve mobility and accessibility in the West of Hudson region. Projected population and employment growth in Orange County, together with growth in ridership on Metro-North’s West of Hudson commuter service and a projected rise in Stewart International Airport (SWF) operations, necessitates the consideration of improved and expanded transit services for travelers in the region. WHRTAS evaluates alternatives for improving transit services between Central Orange County and Manhattan and access to SWF from the surrounding regions, Lower Hudson Valley and New York City. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the lead federal agency for this study which is being conducted in accordance with FTA’s Alternatives Analysis requirements for New Starts program funds. The study also considered the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Extensive agency coordination and public outreach was implemented to obtain input and guidance throughout this study. This included the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which reviewed study material, advised on technical issues, and coordinated with a broad array of elected officials, agencies, organizations, and the general public through direct communication, workshops, roundtable discussions, and open houses. WHRTAS is being conducted in two phases. Phase I is the initial Alternatives Analysis (AA) phase, which evaluates the benefits, costs, and impacts of broad range of transit alternatives with the potential to meet the project's goals and objectives and concludes with the recommendation of a short list of alternatives.
    [Show full text]