USDOTREPORTS ON THEUNITED LINKSFOR THE UNITEDSTATES TERMODAL WORKSHOP HELDIN NEWYORK CITY In the foreground of tbii ponoromicview of New York Harbor is the Red Hook Container Terminal,the Port’s primary marine intermodol facility oo the eort ride of the HudsonRiver.

Contents

I. PREFACE By Dane Ismart, Federal Highway Administration...... 2

II. CONFERENCESUMMARY By Richard T Roberts, The Port Authority of NY & NJ ...... 4

Ill. CONFERENCEFINDINGS By Michael Meyer, Ph.D, Georgia Institute of Technology...... 6

IV. INTERMODALFEDERAL POLICY ...... 12

V. INTERMODALCASE STUDIES/DISCUSSION GROUP REPORTS ...... 14 A. Freight Intermodal Case Study- “Circumferential Commercial Corridor (CCC)“...... 14 (CCC) Map ...... 16 Freight Intermodal Breakout Session Reports ...... 16 Breakout Session 1 - Partnerships ...... 16 Breakout Session 2 - Planning & Intermodal Management System (IMS) ... 18 Breakout Session 3 - Funding ...... 19 Breakout Session 4 - Competitive Issues...... 20 B. Passenger Intermodal Case Study - “Access To The Core” ...... 2 1 “Access To The Core” Map...... 25 Passenger Intermodal Breakout Session Reports...... 25 Breakout Session 1 - Making Intermodalism Work...... 25 Breakout Session 2 - Maintaining Economic Development ...... 28 Breakout Session 3 - Metropolitan Planning and Management Systems .... 29 Breakout Session 4 - Partnerships and Intermodal Implementation...... 30

VI. INTERMODALTOUR REPORT ...... 34

VII. INTERMODALPRESENTATIONS BY: ...... 37 Michael Huerta, Associate Deputy Secretary, USDOT ...... 37 Lucius Riccio, Commissioner, New York City DOT ...... 40 Richard Kelly, Director, Interstate Transportation, The Port Authority of NY & NJ...... 41 The Honorable Robert Roe, Former U.S. Congressman (D - NJ)...... 43

VIII. IMPLEMENTINGAN INTERMODALMANAGEMENT SYSTEM (IMS) By Dane Ismart, FHWA ...... 50

IX. PARTICIPANTS...... 59

X. APPENDIX.,...... 78 I. PREFACE

ExpressRail at Port r Elizabeth is an on- dock intermodal focil- ity geared specifically for rapid ocean con- tainer movements through the port.

By Dane Ismart, USDOT Deputy Secretary; and Michael Federal Highway Administration Huerta, USDOT Associate Deputy Sec- retary and Director of The Office of On July 14 - 16, 1993, the United Intermodalism. Other noted speakers States Department of Transportation were former Congressman Robert Roe and The Port Authority of New York (D-N-J);Thomas Downs, Commissjoner, and New Jersey co-sponsored an Inter- New Jersey DOT; John Egan, Commis- modal Workshop in New York City. sioner, New York DOT; Lucius Riccio, This workshop was called “United Commissioner New York City DOT; Links for the United States:’ The and John Tripp, Counsel, Environmen- USDOT was represented by the Feder- tal Defense Fund. al Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Avia- The United Links For The United tion Administration, Federal Railroad States workshop was the largest of sev- Administration, Maritime Administra- eral intermodal workshops sponsored tion and the Office of Intermodalism. by the Federal Highway Administration Approximately 300 people attended in 1993. The purpose of the work- from federal, state and local agencies shops was to provide an overview of from across the east coast. The private the latest thinking on intermodal plan- sector was also well represented from ning and the latest information on the a freight and passenger perspective. federal regulations. Moderators, coordi- The three day program included sever- nators and panelists were chosen for al speakers from the USDOT, State specific discussion groups according DOTS, MPOs, Transit Agencies, Private to their areas of expertise. The three- Sector, Universities and Environmental day session was an effort to shift from organizations. Featured speakers at the the ISTEA policy stage to the practical workshop were Mortimer Downey, implementation of planning and man-

2 agement systems guidelines and inte- to gain and make use of the lessons grating them into operations. learned. Participants felt that the major outstanding issues which need to be Emphasis was placed on identifying addressed in developing intermodal the opportunities and the possible pit- plans/programs/projects were Institu- falls in applying the new guidelines tional Capability, Customer Orienta- during group discussions. tion, Transportation and Economic The workshop topics included: Development, Partnerships and Flexi- Z+ A panel on “How the Private bility In Design concerns. Sector Views the Transportation The conference findings contain an System;” overview of the fnmk comments, issues, s- Case studies in intermodal concerns, problems and ideas raised by movement of freight and pas- the attendees of the workshop. sengers; Special thanks to the ETA, FAA, FRA, M Airport/seaport access; Maritime, the Office of Intermodalism and FHWA representatives for provid- % Creation of u&&d transporta- ing a multimodal pres’ence at the tion systems; and other regional workshop. mobility issues. And to all The Port Authority employees Tours of major intermodal facilities in who labored tirelessly to develop the the New York and New Jersey area New York City program, despite the were also conducted to see and hear tragic disruptive event at their head- an operational point of view. quarters in the World Ttade Center. So why was this workshop necessary or unique in relation to other USDOT meetings? The answer is simple. This workshop was intended to allow USDOT not only to provide guidance, but more so to listen and discuss the many problems, issues and ideas which have resulted from the ISTEA planning and management system reg- ulations which were intended to devel- op an efficient integrated transporta- tion system. USDOT used the informa- tion to become more sensitive to state and local transportation providers and users in the public and private sector. Developing a transportation system that is customer oriented is our goal. By listening to the exchange of infor- USDOT Deputy Secretary Mortimer Downey addresses mation and assessing the comments the attendees during the opening session of the Inter- from the attendees, everyone was able modal Workshop in New York City. II. CONFERENCESUMMARY

The Port Authority of New York 8 New Jersey develops,

intermodal tram- , ~$&z~G portation facilities. L ‘. -++Ty- __ p

By Richard T. Roberts, Although “best practice” ideas on Port Authority of NY & NJ intermodalism were raised throughout the three day event. The results of the The “United Links for The United program suggest that we still have a States” Intermodal Workshop was a long way to go before everyone has a forum for learning about intermodal clear understanding of how to take practices and implementation of the the first step in (1) developing and/or ISTEA planning and management sys- implementing the Intermodal Manage- tems which address intermodalism. ment System (IMS) and (2) under- Just about every transportation profes- standing the ISTEA metropolitan plan- sional and more so, every region has ning process. their spin or interpretation of inter- Private sector issues were also very modalism. much a part of the program. As trans- The purpose of the Northeastern portation professionals, we must rec- Workshop was to recognize and build ognize that in today’s global economy, upon the belief that intermodalism is a economic development and competi- very broad concept and should remain tive concerns are closely linked to the so. This is necessary in order to give nation’s transportation system. In each region in the nation an opportu- developing the New York City pro- nity to mold a transportation system gram we wanted to ensure that pri- that addresses their mobility, econom- vate sector interests were addressed, ic development and air quality needs. noting the New York/New Jersey

4 region’s position as an international * Economic Development - rec- gateway for commerce and people. ognize transportation’s relation As the host of the Northeastern Inter- to economic development. modal Workshop, the Port Authority % Action Agenda - we need to was particularly sensitive to interstate, move our studies and plans into multimodal and air qualitjr issues, rec- the project phase in order to ognizing that we, as a b&state multi- gain our customers’ respect and modal agency, operate’ in a non-attain- address their needs. ment area for ozone and carbon 3 Funding - without a reliable monoxide. source of fmancial support, it Briefly, the resulting issues from the will be very difficult to maintain workshop included the following: our nation’s transportation infrastructure investment and z+ Customers - a need for cus- remain competitive in the global tomer orientation. Identify the marketplace. customers and defme their bene- fits in the context of regional A more detailed summary of the confer- goals. ence findings follows in this report. Addi- tionally, the many reports and presenta- p Partnerships - you cannot tions, included in the proceedings will force partnerships; seek to facil- provide you with specific comments and itate rather than control. concerns regarding the major issues. Remember that mutual benefits On behalf of The Port Authority of are interwoven with mutual New York and New Jersey - thank you l-MS. for attending and sharing your thoughts.

Approximately 300 people attended the workshop, representing freight and passenger organizations from the public and private sectors. III. CONFERENCEFINDINGS

By Michael Meyer, Ph.D, Georgia + How can we provide recogni- Institute of Technology tion to the customers for partic- ipating in the planning Following are the resulting primar) process? issues raised at the workshop from the speakers. pant’lists and breakout j How can we measure the per- sessions. formance of the transportation system that reflects customer Customer Orientation concerns? A kev theme of the workshop was the This latter issue was considered a development of a “transportatioll sys- timely one in that the ISTEA required tern that is customer oriented.” ‘Ii) do management systems that are based so first requires one to identib the on performance measures. Workshop customers of the transportation sys- participants highlighted several mea- tem. that is, the users of the system sures that would be useful in the for both freight and passenger mobili- Intermodal Management System (IMS) ty. It is also necessary to define cus- and in gaining customer satisfaction. tomer benefits in the context of These measures included (in order of regional goals. For example. how can priority) reliability, costs, congestion improvements in the passenger and reduction and safety. freight mokilit)~ system help achieve The process of developing a customer regional air quality goals? Or. how can oriented trdnsportation system must such improvements relate to enhanc- also address community acceptance. ing regional competitiveness? Impor- tant in ans3vering these types of ques- Projects aimed at improved system tions is to Yicw passenger and freight efficiencies and enhanced economic trdnsportation from a total trip per- productivity (e.g., exclusive truck spective. This means that not only is lanes) could also be viewed as being the line haul portion of a trip impor- intrusive by communities and neigh- tant, but so are the interconnections borhoods. The “customer” of the that occur throughout the trip from transportation planning process thus origin to destination. also includes the general public. When adopting a customer orien- Workshop participants suggested that tation, issues of concern include: there was little difficulty in developing plans. The real challenge lies in imple- How can decisions be made in menting the plans, especially those a timely way to keep the cus- projects that tend to be large and tomers interested in the plan- intrusive. We need to focus more on ning process? how the facility will be marketed, What are the funding sources operated and what will be the ulti- for intermodal projects? mate use of the facility. In short, we

b need to communicate with the cus- During the outreach effort, in devel- tomer of our transportation systems oping partnerships, we must under- (freight and transit) and understand stand that it is important to facilitate, their needs before we begin drafting and not try to control the process - plans. we cannot force partnerships. An unwilling partner is unlikely to pro- Partnerships vide the necessary support and com- mitment . A clear understanding of mutual bene- Finally it was also stressed that it is fits and risks is needed to develop critical to include operating agencies partnerships. There was some con- in the decision making process. Not- cern and confusion as to the meaning ing that it will be the modal operators of partnerships. In the context of (i.e., transit, ports, airports, rail, inter- intermodal planning, partnerships modal facilities) who will inevitably be were not intended to be interpreted impacted by most transportation in the legal/contractual sense. Rather, investment decisions. workshop par- partnerships are a way for parties to ticipants felt that these agencies need come together to discuss, plan and to have a voice in these decisions. make informed decisions on what is needed to benefit the customer/user. Several participants noted that it is Transportation Investment and easier to form partnerships when you Economic Development have a stable regional funding source The relationship between transporta- that can be used to develop inter- tion investment and economic devel- modal projects. opment was a dominant theme in the Key reasons to forge partnerships breakout sessions from both a freight include: and passenger perspective. As high- Z- provides those impacted by the lighted in the ISTEA, “the National decision making process “an Intermodal Transportation System opportunity to be heard and to shall consist of all forms of transporta- influence” the direction of tion systems in a unified, intercon- regional transportation invest- nected manner while promoting eco- ments and decisions; nomic development and supporting the nation’s pre-eminent position in P creates a ‘%vin-win” situation international commerce.” When because in a partnership you addressing regional objectives from an settle differences and agree on a intermodal perspective, passenger and given plan before it is submitted freight flows were viewed as econom- to the IMP0 TIP process; and ic arteries. Many of the workshop S- allows different objectives to be attendees were from cities which incorporated into the planning include ports and thus serve as inter- process. This is especially national gateways. Intermodal trans- important when addressing pri- portation investment thus has a criti- vate sector needs. cal role in international trade and commerce. It was also recognized that improvements to transportation links transportation investment would be will impact areas beyond the intema- used as a means of achieving multiple tional gateways. objectives, including meeting CAAA It was also agreed that a regional fund- requirements, addressing ADA require- ing source for regional intermodal pro ments and managing congestion. jects was needed. Some type of priori- Linking land use to intermodal twns- ty setting for intermodal projects portation planning must be recog- should also be established in the exist- ing TIP process. In the context of better linking ttans- portation investment and economic development, it is important to include private sector interests in planning and decision making. Developing a cus- tomer-oriented transportation system requires us to be good listeners and more importantly be “doers” - that fol- low-up our plans with action in address ing private sector linkage concerns. This is critical for goods movement. Given the market orientation of passen- New York State DOT Commissioner John Egon (L), Port Authority of NYBNJ ger and freight transportation, our plan- Executive Director Stanley Brezenoff (C) and New Jersey DOT Commissioner ning must recognize the changing con- Thomas Downs (R), provided participants with an overview of the New York/New Jersey region’s intermodal network. text of demographics and economics. We must recognize how the market will change in the future in order to antici- nized as a key factor in advancing eco- pate what we need to do now in infra- nomic development. There are com- structure investment. This will allow us plementary land use activities that more time to get intermodal projects in enhance transportation facilities and place to address future needs. could further the economic impact of transportation facilities by improving Institutional Capability the competitiveness of the region. Integrating the many new transporta- Competitiveness as an economic tion requirements into the existing development issue was mentioned in planning process will be a very com- virtually every breakout session, par- plex exercise, especially in older met- ticularly in the context of interregion- ropolitan areas with air quality con- al competition. We need to assess cerns. Recognizing the time lines what our intermodal needs are in required for implementing the Inter- order to compete with other regions modal Management System (IMS) and in the nation. Noting that we now live the many factors which MPOs must and operate in a global economy, it is consider in the planning process, there important to understand how is a need to put in place an institution-

8 al capability to develop and impk- Flexibility in Design ment intermodal projects. In short, there is a necti to have an institutional As transportation facilities are being mechanism which can make decisions built or reconstructed, flexibilit!, for on intermodal projects ant! is capable “filturc t-nhancements” shoulcl be of linking economic development incorporated into the facilit), design. issues to transportation at a regional ‘Ii-chnological innovation plays an level. Participants believed that inter- important role in this flcxihilit\~. For modal facilities (i.e.. terminals, inter- example, project design cm Ix flcxi- changes. etc.) were often viewed as blc enough to anticipate technological “coincidences” rather than as planned changes (e.g., double and triple stack opportunities to link our mature container movements). In addition, modal systems, or as a method to technology can be used as part of the enhance economic dcvclopmcnt solution. (c.g., IVHS technologit3 tht opportunities. This is largcl!. due to will cnhancc tiicility operation j. Such the fact that wc arc institutionall~~ flexibilit), also suggests that opera- structured at the local and federal lev- tional improvements should be con- els along very diverse and indq,cn- sidcretl on equal footing with capacit), dent modal lines. cxpaJlSioJl. “De waq of solutions seeking prob- lems” was an issue which was raised Transition Phase by participants. Planners must first lis- ten to the customer/user and learn From an institutional 2lJld funding pcr- what their needs or problems art’ spcctivc. we art’ cxpcricncing a transi- before developing solutions. It was tion phase in tcinsportation as a result noted that many times WC approach of the many mandates required from transportation from the other direc- IS’l’EA. “Participant cxpcctations“ of tion (i.e., acquiring a technolog:), the many rcquirenicnts is still t’\ oh- before finding a use or urgenc~y for its ing. A few critical questions which implementation). must be answt-red in regards to who Coordinating system operations was actually will be involved in the drci- also an institutional intcrmodal issue. sion Jll;lkiJlg, particilhrly gi\‘eJl tllc. In order to maximize niobilit~, inte- t-nhancecl role of the MPO process. grated fare cards and scheduling include: Will major modal operators would promote 3 more user friendI>. have a true voice in the MI’0 process? transportation s)%eni. How will the private sector be brought into the process? For freight, there was a strong conscn- sus that private sector groups must be The nlctropolitan planning process is invited to the table in order to assess coniplcx, due to the many rccluirc- what their needs arc and to provide a mcnts that must bc linked to trans- more open public involvement portation projects in urban areas (i.e.. process. Hopefillly this would provide CAAA, ADA and environmental per- the public and private sectors a forum mitting). The planning coniniunit~~ to “figure each other out.” and the private sector are still tr!,ing al capability to develop and imple- Flexibility in Design ment intermodal projects. In short, there is a need to have an institutional As transportation facilities are being mechanism which can make decisions built or reconstructed, flexibility for on intermodal projects and is capable “future enhancements” should be of linking economic development incorporated into the facility design. issues to transportation at a regional Technological innovation plays an level. Participants believed that inter- important role in this flexibility. For modal facilities (i.e., terminals, inter- example, project design can be flexi- changes, etc.) were often viewed as ble enough to anticipate technological “coincidences” rather than as planned changes (e.g., double and triple stack opportunities to link our mature container movements). In addition, modal systems, or as a method to technology can be used as part of the enhance economic development solution, (e.g., IVHS technologies that opportunities. This is largely due to will enhance facility operation). Such the fact that we are institutionally flexibility also suggests that opera- structured at the local and federal lev- tional improvements should be con- els along very diverse and indepen- sidered on equal footing with capacity dent modal lines. expansion. “Be wary of solutions seeking prob- lems” was an issue which was raised Transition Phase by participants. Planners must first lis- ten to the customer/user and learn From an institutional and funding per- what their needs or problems are spective, we are experiencing a trdnsi- before developing solutions. It was tion phase in transportation as a result noted that many times we approach of the many mandates required from transportation from the other direc- ISTEX “Participant expectations” of tion (i.e., acquiring a technology the many requirements is still evolv- before finding a use or urgency for its ing. A few critical questions which implementation). must be answered in regards to who Coordinating system operations was actually will be involved in the deci- also an institutional intermodal issue. sion making, particularly given the In order to maximize mobility, inte- enhanced role of the MPO process, grated fare cards and scheduling include: Will major modal operators would promote a more user friendly have a true voice in the MPO process? transportation system. How will the private sector be brought into the process? For freight, there was a strong consen- sus that private sector groups must be The metropolitan planning process is invited to the table in order to assess complex, due to the many require- what their needs are and to provide a ments that must be linked to trans- more open public involvement portation projects in urban areas (i.e., process. Hopefully this would provide CAAA, ADA and environmental per- the public and private sectors a forum mitting). The planning community to “figure each other out.” and the private sector are still trying TRANSCOM, a coalition of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut transportation agen- cies, is a key source of information on doily regional trafffc movements and incidents.

The next questions then become: Conclusion - What type of information do we By the very definition of “intermodal:’ need for site specifk decisions and given our historical modally-orient- or for a system monitoring? ed institutional structure, project imple- *Whattypeofdatadoweneedto mentation is very complex, resource &fine the performance measures? intensive and time consuming. w What type of data collection ISTEA provides an opportunity for strategies do we need to collect dealing with intermodal projects, fund- the data? ing resources and timeframes. The development of the IMS should be However, we still have a long way based on first knowing the needs of the to go, especially in: customer and the region. Many states P understanding institutional and regions have reinvented the wheel capability at the regional level; by starting their IMS initiatives by col- s- realizing the impacts of funding lecting and developing data that may or limits and shortfalls; may not be used to address their regional goals. The purpose of the flexi- I- dealing with project pipeline bility in the federal guidelines is to backlogs which are due in part allow the regions to use what data they to the large number of projects may already have to address their indi- at the MPO level with protective vidual needs. The guidelines never constituencies; and intended the states to start from scratch * providing education on what on their IMS efforts. ISTEA means to the customer.

11 IV. INTERMODALFEDERAL POLICY

Office of lntermodalism and environmental benefits are integral to the final product. An intermodal Nancy Harris, Office of Inter- approach to transportation planning modal&m, characterized ISTEA’s focuses on maximizing mobility. This impact as “intermodalism, the new takes into account all modes used dur- ing a total trip to deliver either people or goods. ’

Federal Transit Administration

Robert Owens, FlX, stated that ISTEA facilitated an enhanced working relationship between the modal admin- istrations in the USDOT. As an exam- ple, he noted the current cooperative efforts in defming the planning and management regulations with other USDOT administrations, in particular FI-IWA. Additionally, FTA has funded

The Port Authority Bus Terminal, the world’s busiest commuter bus terminal, intermodal facilities with other modal serves over 54 million passengers annually. administrations and in partnerships with the private sector who have been active in developing intermodal termi- transportation revolution.” She noted nals. Mr. Owens highlighted the devel- that with the completion of the opment of a large St. Louis intermodal nation’s transportation systems, which facility which includes rail, bus, bicy- were developed in isolation and in cle, pedestrian, heliport and taxicab. competition with each other, we now Due to the fact that federal transporta- have to refocus on the integmtion of tion funding belongs to all taxpayers, the existing systems, for maximum dollars should be targeted to those pro- efficiency. lntermodalism includes all jects which benefit the greatest num- assets, modes and the informaticn ber of people throughout the country. which travels through the systems. Listening to customers and knowing Further, it recognizes new technology their needs and concerns is the way to and the role it plays in influencing and achieve this goal. modifying our transportation capabili- ty nationwide. Good transportation Federal Railroad Administration requires efficient connections between modes and advocates making better FRA representative Rob Martin also transportation planning decisions indicated that FRA has initiated mote while considering a full range of alter- contact with other USDOT modal natives. This could assure that safety administrations as a result of the ISTEA’s

12 framework. He added that the railroad Maritime Administration industry is probably “one of the only modes with excess capacity. You can James Carman, MARAD stated that get a lot more transportation out of it:’ various studies on landside access for Listening to the customer is also very ports are also being conducted coop- much in line with FRA thinking - FRA eratively with other USDOT modal has developed courses in how to work administrations. Mr. Carman noted more cooperatively with the railroads. that Ports are real intermodal compe Mr. Martin also indicated that the nil- nents of the transportation system and roads should not focus too heavily on that dredging concerns must be federal funding simply because there is addressed along with landside access not very much in the pot. needs in order to maintain a port’s competitiveness. Federal Aviation Administration Federal Highway Administration FAA highlighted linkage issues associat- ed to access. Airport/seaport access are FI-NA is the USDOT modal adminis- key intermodal concerns for both oper- tration which sponsored the inter- ators and planning agencies and they modal workshops. They are also draft- are focal points in the ISTEA Declara- ing, in cooperation with PTA, the bulk tion of Policy and in the planning guide- of the ISTEA regulations in particular lines. Lanty Kiernan, FM pointed out the management and planning guide- that unfortunately ground access is a lines. FHWA representative, Dane poorly developed sector of transporta- Ismart, provided the audience with a tion engineering. Mr. Kiernan stressed comprehensive briefmg of the ISTEA that FAA is now looking more broadly guidelines. Please refer to Section VIII into the movement of people and for FHWA’s briefing on the Intermodal goods, not just aircraft. In a cooperative Management System (IMS) technical project with FHWA, FAA is developing a guidelines. planning guide for access to airports.

The USDOT was represented by a multimodal presence. Addressing the participants were Nancy Harris, Office of Intermodalism; Capt. James Cormon, Moritime Administration; Dane Ismort, FHWk Larry Kiernon, FAA; Rob Martin, FRA; and Robert Owens, FTA. V. INTERMODALCASE STUDIES/ DISCUSSIONGROUP REPORTS

Two case studies were used as the An Immediate Implementation Pkdn mechanisms to highlight key intermodal has been developed to identi@ those issues. The “(:ircumfer~ntial (hmmcr- near-term intermodal projects which cial Corridor‘ (CC:<:) focused on freight should receive the highest priority, mobility and the “Accc~s to the (:01-e” and could be implemented immediate- case stud!, highlighted passenger move- I!. in a phased approach, with needed ment. Although both case studies high- tlcxibility to adapt to changing region- Lighted n~iiltimoclal intcrstatc linkage al priorities. ‘These projects are com- concerns in the New York/New Jersc), poncnts of a larger, more comprehen- metropolitan area. the). raised various sive got )ds movement program. Elc- issues which could bc applied to most mcnts of the longer-term program will urban centers in the nation. Each cast’ require further examination to deter- study session was followed by four mine their effectiveness, and may breakout groups \+rhich highJight4 par- change in response to emerging new ticular issues hcnsiti\Yz to the rle~elop- market needs. Kecognizing regional ment anti implcm~ntation of’ intcrmochl economic realities, projects listed on programs and projects. Hclow arc the Immediate lmplementdtion Plan descriptions of hoth case studies should receive first priority (subject to (including mapping). folio\\ c-d 1~).the funding availability), followed by more discussion group reports. comprehensive, long-range, intermodal programs. A. Freight Intermodal Case Study “Circumferential Intermodal Economic Activities CommercialCorridor” (CCC) ‘I%e New York metropolitan region The Circuntii-rcntial <~onimrrcial <:orri- historically has been one of the dor would signiCcantl!- improve the cco- world’s great port cities, and has pros- nomic viability and global competitive- pered with world trade and associated ness of the NY/NJ region and its popula- import/export activities. Statistics from tion of more than 16 million people. the late 1980’s indicated that 15 per- Working closely with the States of New cent of total 1J.S.merchandise trade York and Ne~vJersq; The Port Authority passed through the NY/NJ customs of NY & NJ has developed an intermodal district. almost 55 million tons. Look- stratep to address regional connectivity, ing at 1J.S.imports alone, the propor- reliability and flexibility. The hY/NJ

Reliability, Connectivity and Flexibility deliveries as a means to minimize inventories and increase goods move- Three major prerequisites for ment efficiencies has increased the regional intermodal mobility are: importance of reliability for a success- ful regional business climate. - Reliability (relative to conges- tion); Major intermodal facilities within the NY/NJ metropolitan region include five b connectivity (linkages to region- major marine terminal facilities, three al intermodal facilities); and major international airports, and more > Flexibility (serving several com- independent rail intermodal facilities mercialmodes). than any other East Coast port. All three concerns are addressed Efficient intermodal linkages among through the Circumferential Commer- these and other regional facilities are cial Corridor. critical to the continued economic growth and devrlopmcnt of the NY/NJ of dollars in sales and income taxes region. Development of the (KC and thousands of jobs. More than would provide the needed connectivio, 420,000 jobs are directly associated ;tnd intermodal linkages to maintain with the port and aviation industries and expand regional intermodal f;lcili- in the NY/NJ region. When consider- ties and support the competitiveness ing indirect or secondary employment effects, employment opportunities involved in servicing or support of port and aviation activities are multi- plied several times.

New Jersey

Freight Intermodal Breakout Session Reports

The intermodal freight case study (CCC) was used as the starting point for discussing four major issues which are necessary in developing and . -..-- -.- implementing intermodal freight pro- sllqe Norrowr Bridge gdms and projects. The New York/New Jersey Circumferenfial These issues are: Commercial Corridor. > Partnerships; of the NY/NJ region as a leader in i- Planning and Intermodal Man- national and international trade. agement System; The CCC would serve the changing i- Funding; and needs of the goods movement indus- 3- Competitive Issues. try and also provide the flexibility needed to evaluate the effectiveness of rail, truck, barge. or a combination Breakout Session 1, Partnerships: of these modes. Facilitating goods The term partnership described work- movement through a commercial cor- ing relationships, long term commit- ridor also would achieve a better bal- ment and sharing of risks and bene- ance between truck and rail, neces- fits. Implementation of the CCC, as sary to deal effectively with clean air, with other regional intermodal pro- vehicle efficiency, fuel consumption, jects, would require cooperation and trdnsportation costs, and related coordination between the region’s regional issues. transportation agencies and the pri- The goods movement industry gener- vate sector. Participants of the partner- ates millions of dollars in related ser- ship breakout session outlined a num- vices and support businesses, millions ber of concerns and ideas. General comments from this session indicated York City Economic Development that partnerships were a mechanism Commission, noted “that it is not the for the private sector to get their con- role of government to tell the private cerns heard by government agencies sector how to do business.” Good part- and a way for the public sector to get nership examples have been “win-win,’ the private sector to buy-in to their even though the parties involved may projects and agenda. have different objectives. There is still a Still there was no sense of how to forge sense of private sector skepticism, or encourage these relationships. For because everyone has their own agen- example, how would public agencies da and their own point of view. Jack bring in private sector inte=sts in try- Barthwell, Conrail, stated that “a clear- ing to define the freight component of ance project in Pennsylvania worked the Intermodal Management System? out because everyone received bene- The private sector holds valuable and fits. Other times, things don’t work out necessary data information which because government doesn’t under- could assist the States and MPOs in stand how business works.” developing systems which would It was recognized that the private sector address linkage and efficiency mea- will oppose public policy that negative- sures unique to their particular regions. ly affects their business and will partici- The heart of the problem is overcom- pate only if they will get some return on ing the barriers between the public any investment they might make. Ellis and private sectors. Chris Ward, New Vieser, New Jersey Alliance for Action,

Federal and local intermodal perspectives were provided by USDOT and Port Authority representatives, Nancy Harris, USDOT Off ice of Intermodalism; Anthony Shorris, Deputy Executive Director, Port Authority of NYLNI; Michael Huerta, USDOT Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation; and Richard Roberts, Chief of Transport&n Planning and Policy, Interstote Transportation, Port Authority of NY&NJ. indicated that “Planners do a great job gested using IVHS. The technolog,T of deliberdting, but can not get past the and funding is now available. By using issue of who is going to do what.” Nev- the available funding to develop IVHS ertheless, despite the difficulties in applications either for planning or for developing these partnerships, the pri- implementation, the resulting IVHS vate sector wants and needs to be activity could also provide information involved. There is the need to build con- on reliability factors in goods move- sensus and get the roles to be compli- ment. Managing demand was men- mentary instead of being adVerYdrid1. tioned as a measure to reduce conges- tion and increase freight mobility. It was noted that there are also other kinds of partnerships, (i.e., getting the Possible measures to do this general public to buy-into projects). included: Benefits of these types of partnerships ‘+ Congestion pricing for the use could be critical to advancing commer- of roads and bridges; cial corridors, truck prioriv lanes, or electronic tolls. Stan Gee, FHWA men- i- Intermodal management of tioned that “FHWA wdnts to reach out freight; and to the private sector in order to under- r- Off hours freight deliveries. stand their needs related to infrastruc- ture.” The public sector’s goal should Although the participants recognized be to fundamentally change the wa) that developing large scale projects transportation planning is done, basical- which address linkage concerns may ly by making it more business-like. take at times 15-20 years, there was agreement that planning agencies should not use this as an excuse to Breakout Session 2, avoid addressing a series of low cost Planning and intermodal projects which provide connectivity. Management System (IMS): Additionally, there was concern about the availability of data to make good This session addressed the specific per- decisions for long term solutions and formance measures to gauge and plan short term capital improvements. This for freight movement. issue is very much in line with the The participants highlighted the general concerns in other regions of following in order of importance: the nation, noting that the private sec- > Customer satisfaction; tor holds much of the available data that could be helpful in developing * Reliability; the freight component of the IMS. % cost; Finally, panelists voiced concerns S- Congestion reduction; and about whether MPOs are presently organized and staffed to carry out the + Safety. increased responsibilities placed on In order to break ground on develop- their shoulders (to carry out the plan- ing units of measurement and even ning and management system require- technology, Dane Isrndrt, FI-WA. sug- ments). Noting that most participants attending this workshop represented In response to these issues, it was older urban regions with clean air con- apparent to the participants that there cerns, their MPO responsibilities could appears to be more projects than avail- be seen as disproportionate compared able dollars. This is largely due to the to other regions in the nation. diverse competing groups vying for limited tinds. Although the ISTEA pro- Breakout Session 3, vided the criteria in both the metro- Funding: politan and statewide planning guide- lines for considering transportation The shortfall of authorized ISTEA projects which address connectivity, funding was echoed throughout the most participants noted that the ISTEA threeday workshop. This raised the expectations in actually developing issue that flexibility in transferring lim- intermodal freight plans and projects ited funds from one program to anoth- is unrealistic. FHWA representative er has been minimal at best. Charles Nemmers noted that there are Given this scenario, participants many other factors besides funding focused on a few key funding which impact project selection, such issues for freight intermodal as permits and clean air requirements. projects: He also noted that projects which con- nect ports, truck terminals and inter- + In a funding environment that modal facilities have a better chance often has more needs than of receiving funding, due to the link- funds, participants tackled the age factors listed for consideration in issue of what is the expectation the MPO and statewide planning of how successful intermodal guidelines. Additionally National High- projects will be in securing way System (NHS) funds also target ISTEA funding? projects which provide linkage to S=There was concern on the types ports, seaports, international gateways of intermodal projects which and intermodal facilities. ISTEA has would be expected to be funded challenged us to be innovative, there- in the TIP process. fore,proposed projects should be cre- S- Establishing a funding priority ative in addressing linkage concerns. It for any type of transportation was noted that rdil freight projects project requires the support of cannot be funded under the ISTEA a constituency (freight does not highway funding, but highway pro- vote). What constituency is jects and highway to rail can be. there for intermodal projects In the context of funding, public/pri- and what is needed to be suc- vate partnership concerns are still not cessful in furthering intermodal fully understood or developed. Both projects? interests need to work together to * What specific steps need to be maximize mobility in any given area in taken to provide sufficient order to minimize unnecessary com- funding and/or funding eligibil- petition with each other. As an exam- ity for intermodal projects? ple, Disney World was unsuccessful in

19 obtaining IS’I’EA funding to construct in public/private partnerships. Private a $20 million highway interchange to sector participants stated that partncr- provide more efficient access to its ships will be formed only if there is faciliq. ‘Iherefore brokering projects productivity to be gained. which impact regional economic No one cares how the freight development is very much an issue arrives or who participated which the private sector sees as a fac- because the private sector is more tor on whether they will get involved focused on: in the TIP process. + in efficient and flexible trans- Anthony Kiccio. Harlem River Yard portation system; Ventures. stressed the importance of having private sector interests repre- i- Thinking globally: and sented during the TIP selection S- Getting the freight to the market. process. The dilemma becomes that There was a question as to whether the pri\,ate sector often does not partnerships would even work know how to become involved in the because of the large number of preda- MI’0 process and finds it difficult to tors in the marketplace looking for the tap into funding despite the ISTIS greatest opportunity to take advantage public/private partnership provisions. of its efficiency in moving freight. So what you arc left with is a situation where government speaks to govern- Private sector participants also noted ment and the private sector’s interests that government must look at its role are left out of the TIP In order to help as a service provider to the private sec- address this concern, Richard Mal- tor. In order to allow carriers and ship chow, New York DOT. stated that pers to become more competitive in there is a need to include private scc- mature metropolitan areas, there must tor representatives in their meetings. be a blending of the modes including more rail elements into intermodal ter- minals, ports, airports, truck terminals Breakout Session 4, and international gateways. This would Competitive Issues: maximize mobility options in dense A key theme in the country’s tmns- urban centers while addressing con- portation policy is that the National gestion and air quality concerns. Intermodal Trdnsportation System Public sector representatives ques- shall provide the foundation for the tioned whether they had enough nation to compete in the global ecoii- information to identify the perfor- omy. Participants of this breakout mance measures unique to their group were focused on productivity, regions. They noted that the private partnerships, technology and freight sector holds much of the freight data interests in the blP<) process. It was information necessary to develop the agreed that productivity is the key to freight component of the Intermodal assess demand, by public sector Management System (IMS). Additional- investment or as a factor by the pri- ly, public sector representatives indi- vate sector to determine participation cated that simply ‘building and devel- aping intermodal facilities (including try, who pointed out that major costs approaches) will not guarantee private are landside. This is largely due to anti- sector use of the facility. You cannot quated infrastructure, where many of assume that if you “build it and they the interstates are the grandfathered will come.” In a partnership, the pub- highways which cannot safely handle lic and the private sectors will only the longer and wider trailers used in share the benefits if they also share other parts of the country. the risks and commitment. There must be a return on any investment, whether it comes from the private sec- B. Passengerlntermodal Case tor or the public sector. Study “Access To The Core” The MPO process was viewed as diff- Background cult to understand and/or cumber- some by the participants, in particular In 1989, the Metropolitan Transporta- for the private sector attendees. Gen- tion Authority (MTA) in collaboration eral comments indicated that the with the Port Authority (PA), exam- process had to be more user friendly ined the feasibility of extending the and that MPOs should think much Flushing Line (#7) to the Meadow- more broadly and globally in order to lands in New Jersey. Working with the understand the private sector’s sensi- New York City Transit Authority, the tivity to time and efficiency. MPOs MTA and PA took a broad took at the were thought of being too local mind- merits of creating a new transit rail ed to properly consider long distance service westward into New Jersey as a (out of region) benefits. Most partici- way to ease the trans-Hudson com- pants agreed that in older metropoli- muting squeeze and bring real bene- tan areas with air quality concerns, fits to New York and New Jersey. The like many east coast port cities, findings suggested that such a new regions are complicated by their size service would address an important . and responsibilities. This situation mobility market need and would pro- places an even heavier burden on the vide some significant environmental MPOs as they facilitate the TIP and economic benefits to the region process, noting the many factors by pointedly strengthening access to which must be considered as they Manhattan’s Core. review proposed projects for funding. The extension may represent a dramat- As an efficiency measure, it was ic remedy for Midtown. It offers agreed that introduction of intermodal expanded trans-Hudson capacity cross- technology was needed (EDI, terminal town on a non-polluting electric rail handling technology, high speed mode, an important consideration in barge, roadrailer, bogie technology) in light of the Clean Air legislation, while order to truly assist regions in maxi- providing transit access to the develop mizing “just in time” delivery and ing waterfronts in both states. Rerout- door to door services. Again, this was ing of some existing commuter bus an especially sensitive area for eastern routes to New Jersey stations on a new port cities and for the air cargo indus- line could free up capacity on I-495 and

21 the Lincoln ‘Iurmel which could then Midtown transit distribution system be used for priority freight routing. and a new rapid transit line. This report was well received and pro- In September 1990, the six major vided the catalyst for additional work transportation agencies in New York on identifying a transHudson Mid- and New Jersey reviewed all known town crossing. The Flushing line was long-range transportation initiatives

Grand Central Terminal, o major passenger intermodal hub, serves NYC subway and suburban commuter rail. one of a number of possible options affecting overall regional mobility, for improving access from New Jersey with specific emphasis on enhancing to Midtown. Other alternatives subse- movement to and through the Mid- quently examined included: increased town Manhattan Business District. train handling capacity at Penn Sta- Based on this work, the MTA and the tion, NY, by New Jersey Transit (NJT) PA proposed that the core access and other west of the Hudson com- issue be advanced. muter services; a new commuter rail In October of 1990, the six regional tunnel from New Jersey into Grand transportation agencies officially adopt- Central Terminal; a combination of ed core access as one of the most criti- bus and ferry services with a new cal transportation issues facing the region. Subsequently, the “Future sey Waterfront and the Hackensack Access to the Region’s Core” study Meadowlands. It is becoming increas- group was formed. The study group’s ingly important to the region’s econo- plan was to define a long-term infra- my to interconnect the many transit structure development strategy integrat- facilities within this new nucleus of ing the region’s non-contiguous trans- growing economic activity. portation network into a cohesive, envi- The Port Authority’s recent interstate ronmentally sound system. The underly- network analyses identified a new ing theme of this plan was to maximize fixed rail facility as the most promis regional mobility per dollar invested in ing long term initiative for the Mid- new infrastructure. The study would town Corridor. It was particularly recommend one or more long term effective in attracting trans-Hudson transportation policy initiatives aimed auto commuters from their vehicles, at advancing regional connectivity and thus addressing future vehicular seamless growth between and through growth at both the George Washing- the core and its adjoining suburbs. ton Bridge and the Lincoln Tunnel. Benefits attributed to the core access The overall scope of work for the alternatives during the study included a Core Access Study is now being for- faster, more direct service into Midtown mulated by MTA, NJT and PA plan- and Queens, diversion of several thou- ners. It is likely to include a complete sand riders from automobiles, improved market study, a determination of the air quality, improved access to the ccc feasibility and cost of the various alter- nomic core, reduced pressures on Penn natives, and plans for financing and Station and more expeditious movement operating the preferred alternative. of goods into New York City.

Descriptionof Alternatives CurrentStudy For the intent of improving east-west More recent economic, population and access to the Midtown Manhattan traffic forecasts performed by the PA core, four broad categories of rail and others continued to show future alternatives will be among those rec- tram+Hudson traffic growth to jobs in ommended for future detailed study. Midtown Manhattan. Existing interstate In addition to a “No Build and a No public transportation facilities in the New Rail Tunnel” (Bus/Ferry alterna- Midtown Corridor, such as the Port tive), the rail alternatives will be Authority Bus Terminal and Penn Sta- selected from three generic cate- tion, Manhattan are approaching capac- gories: conventional rapid transit,sub- ity With additional vehicular capacity urban rapid transit and two general in this corridor impractical, new long configurations for commuter rail. term rail capacity may well be needed.

It should also be noted that the Man- ConventionalRapid Transit hattan Core has expanded along an East-West axis from Queens across the The primary rapid transit alternative is West Side of Manhattan to the New Jer- a Trans-Hudson extension of the exist-

23 ing New York City Transit Authority Jersey portion of this option might No. 7 Flushing Line. As previously cross the Hudson River near 92nd described, the extension of the Flush- Street. At Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, ing Line could make use, in Manhdt- the line could merge into the existing tan, of the existing cross-town sub- system at a new at-grade station before way, together with its three existing continuing north and west. A connec- stations. The extension of this line to tion to the Northeast Corridor would the west would include a new station be examined. on 12th Avenue, providing transit ser- Another commuter rail option might vice to the west side of Manhattan. involve running Long Island Railroad This extension would expand the and NJT commuter trains across Man- interconnectivity of the transit net- hattan from Sunnyside in Queens to work since the Flushing line accesses the Meadowlands in New Jersey. Metro-North at Grand Centrdl Station, Trains could stop at up to four stations the Long Island Railroad at Woodside in Manhattan. Alignments would be in Queens, New York and New Jersey investigated between 50th and 33rd Transit at the proposed Secaucus Streets with one variation being the Transfer Station. In New Jersey it expansion of Penn Station. This broad could include stations on the Water- category of alternatives would be front, near the New Jersey Tttrnpike most similar to regional rail develop- and at a new rail station near the ments in Europe. sports complex. FreightCopability SuburbanRapid Transit All alternatives would be investigated This alternative might cross Manhdt- for freight carrying capability. tan on 49th Street. It was selected for further study since it would be inde- IntermodalAspects pendently Operated and free from the From the passenger viewpoint, a new constrdint of the existing transit and transit link could provide a much high- commuter rail system, allowing use of er degree of intermodal connectivity larger cars and the latest technology. for passengers. Specifically, it could The New Jersey alignment would be more fully integrate commuter rail ser- similar to the Flushing Line extension. vice in New Jersey and Long Island The 63rd Street tunnel would be con- with the existing subway system and sidered for connecting the new line to all connecting bus services. For the Queens. commuter rail choice, in particular, off peak rail freight access to Long Island CommuterRail is a distinct possibility. Where feasible, alternatives also might be linked to air- This alternative could include a trans- port access services proposed near Hudson crossing to upper Manhattan, Sunnyside in Queens. providing direct passenger access from Bergen and Rockland Counties to Grand Central Terminal. The New Passenger Intermodal Breakout Breakout Session 1, Session Reports Making lntermodalism Work:

Following are the passenger case study The ISTEA and the Clean Air Act pro- reports resulting from the four breakout mote intermodal service, flexible sessions. As in the freight case study, funding, multimodal participation in the passenger case study - Access to the decision making, and increased public Core, was used as the mechanism to participation during planning. Yet we discuss major issues which impact the can see from the last two decades, development and implementation of forces seem to be somewhat aligned inter-modal programs and projects. against us. There have been radical shifts in travel behavior, both by The breakout sessions were divid- households and firms. Minimizing ed into four major issues: transportation costs is a key concern. N Making Intermodalism Work; Our planning agencies have become s Maintaining Economic Develop- fragmented - the tri-state area (Con- ment; necticut, New York, New Jersey) is now three uni states. New York’s MTA % Metropolitan Planning and Man- still has political difficulty dividing the agement Systems; and capital pie among its operating units. * Partnerships and Intermodal CAAA and the environmental issues Implementation bring pressures unforeseen a decade

Access to the Core map. Lucius Rictio (L), Commissioner, New York City DOT briefed the participants on New York City’s linkage issues and concerns. Richard Kelly (C), Port Authority of NY&NJ; and James Tripp, Environmental Defense Fund also highlighted regional mobility needs and their relation to environmental concerns. ago (or just ignored), and our road- mobility and how we measure it - ways which never could meet their VMT, minutes/trip, hours of delay, demands must respond to the man- trips foregone, trips induced and how dates of CAAA. to improve it. Will these projects improve mobility? Are all the segments Yet our core, which has a daytime the same? Will the projects improve population greater than most of the regional welfare through an increase world’s cities, still works, and it works, in the gross regional product? Will not because of telephones or comput- they make the core more attractive? ers, but because of well planned and To achieve optimum results from our well run, though a little aging, public investments, are the projects grouped transit system. correctly, and are they implemented There are a number of projects, and operated by the logical organiza- planned and programmed which are tional structure. Are investment funds “ready to go” to provide improve- lost due to competitive regional plan- ments in the system. The session ning, decision making and implemen- examined highway/roadway improve- tation? ments and their impact to transit. We asked, during this session, do Major Discussion Issues And Concerns these projects make sense for the changing regional demographics and N Understanding demographic economics? How can we evaluate and economic shifts/trends will these projects against the mandates of help guide future transportation ISTEA? First let’s think about regional (including intermodal) invest-

26 ment. Example: if the New Design capital projects to antici- York/New Jersey region’s core pate future needs, including will diminish in importance, changes in technology, demand how can investments be adapt- and joint operations induced by ed to suburban travel priorities intermodalism. Adapt our facili- as well as the core? ties to a new intermodal stan- dard as they are “brought to a As transportation practitioners, state of good repair”. we must understand the cus- tomer and make customer Not enough money exists and based decisions to make travel too many strings are still easier. Inter-modal&m is an attached. A regional tax for important factor in satisfying transportation that maintains a user demands because it regular and predictable cash reduces or eliminates travel flow through the region is barriers and makes the system required as an independent (of user friendly. federal) revenue source. Decentralized (local) land use Educating practitioners is as decision making creates uncer- important as educating the pub tainty for centralized (regional) lit in overcoming modal and transportation investment. Will institutional bias. Overcoming a fvved route transit investment modal bias on the part of modal attract higher density to justify advocates, will be an element in the investment or will develop- balancing (intermodally) trans- ment be restrained artilicially by portation programs. The new municipal caprice? zeal for fared guideway/rail transit among elected officials Intermodalism encourages new can be productive, if it is direct- partners because it requires ed at accomplishing fmancially crossing institutional bound- realistic and technically feasible aries, modal delineations, tradi- projects. tional interests and operating turfs. It also represents chal- Learn from the experience of lenges, for example creating a others. In the field of surface financial clearinghouse system transportation, the U.S. has among electronic toll collection gone from innovator/leader to agencies sharing the same tech- a follower, playing catch up nology. during the past four decades. We have to learn to adapt oth- Mechanisms for interagency ers’ innovations and advance planning is a necessity. The our technology and practices lack thereof now in our region based on mistakes and break- is a deficiency which affects a throughs ma& elsewhere. broad range of factors includ- ing our quality of life and global competitiveness.

27 Breakout Session 2, funds through the Passenger Facility Maintaining Economic Development: Charge (PFC). Suggestions for funding sources include tolling the NYC Edst Economic growth is very much at the Ever Bridges and Congestion Pricing. heart of the nation’s transportation Lenny &dun, Consultant, also echoed policy. This session focused on how the same concern for a more dedicat- the transit cast study and other gener- ed funding source for transportation al transportation issues in other areas improvements. Larry Filler, TransitCen- of the nation are aimed at supporting ter, stated that “TransitCenter looks at economic development, while the provision of transit services from a addressing mobilit), energy and air business perspective. Linkage of the quality concerns. existing t~msportation system is important. The customer does not ‘Transportation networks in most care if it is one agency or another that major metropolitan regions in the east 0per;ltes a transit service. The ciis coast are very complicated. Jeff tomcr‘s goal is simply to get from Zupan, of the Kcgional Plan Associ;t- point A to 13,without hassles. The sys tion. commcntcd that in the New tern has to be as easy to use as possi- York, Connecticut, New Jcrscy region ble. If there are new services, they “there are miiltiplc transit operators must be marketed, like any other prod- crossing any number of jurisdictional uct.“ Wdlter Ernst, Amtrak, highlighted boundaries.” Although the IS’I’EA met- the critical linkage Penn Station, NY ropolitan planning provisions cncour- plays in a major metropolitan environ- age coordinated planning efforts in ment. He SVdted“to operate in this multi-state arcas, it still Icavcs planners environment there are a number of with a number of major issues to concerns Amtr;tk and other agencies resolve when making critical deci- must address in opemting in this inter- sions to evaluate improvcmeiits to the modal hub. For example Amtrak oper- network. A frequently overlooked fac- ates intercity service at the same time tor is land use. Ziipan also stated that that the local commuter services oper- “a sample of tr;lnsl~ortatioti improve- ate,” causing competition for limited ments include thrLi-routings and sub- space. Additionally there are different way and rail integration. ‘I’hcrc needs service requirements for intercity oper- to be a process or a mechanism which ations. Chief among them is speed of provides fi)r the iniplemcnt;~tion of service (Amtrak is beginning high these interjurisdictional and multi- speed train service on the Northeast operator projects. Public participation (;orridor from New York to Washing- should begin earl), in the planning ton). Ernst also stressed the impor- process.” tance of cooperative efforts in working Floyd Lapp, NYC: Planning, stated that with other agencies in providing seam- the lack of funding is a planner’s less mobility from an operational point blight. We need to identify innovative of view. For example he pointed out funding sources. For example I;lil the improvements New Jersey Transit, access to New York’s airports is Iinall~~ Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and Amtrak underway because of the availability of are investing in Penn Station NY There was also concern of the rela- transportation plans and programs. tionship of planning to operating Based on existing experiences, pan- needs. John Bennett, Long Island Rail- elists exchanged information on issues road, stated that capacity/operating which should be addressed - noting constraints at Penn Station NY must that we are already two years into the be taken into account, when consider- ISTEA framework. ing plans to increase rail service at the The importance of public participa- station. To address this concern LIRR tion was again stressed in this ses- is undertaking a Network Strategy sion. It was highlighted that without Study to provide for improved and a buy-in from the users of the system, efficient operations. The Railroad will operators and agency cooperation, it look at the viability of service to would be very difficult to move for- Grand Central and the possibility of ward on intermodal projects that diesel fuel replacement. must pass through the MPO TIP Mary K. Murphy, Port Authority of NY process. & NJ, highlighted Port Authority efforts in linking transportation Noting that there has been a shortfall improvements to economic develop- in funding on a year to year basis, we ment in the New York/New Jersey need to make more informed deci- region. She noted a Network Analysis sions on leveraging our limited dol- undertaken by the Port Authority in lars. Ray Ruggieri, New York Metro its primary corridors: Northern, Mid- politan Transportation Council, noted town, Southern. Each which is an the role the management systems will opportunity for economic develop- play is in helping us make informed ment. For example, Northern Corri- decisions before we dedicate funding dor - usage of advanced technology for transportation improvements. (i.e., IVHS). Midtown Corridor - Although the management systems improved goods movement and an regulations were not released at the opportunity for economic develop time of the workshop, federdl guid- ment in transit terminals. Southern ance allows the states and MPOs to Corridor - improved vehicular/HOV tailor the management systems to fit capacity, including goods movement. their regional needs. Therefore, the IMS which addresses both passenger and freight concerns will be devel- Breakout Session 3, oped by each state, in order for each Metropolitan Planning region to include unique factors and Management Systems: which will assist in addressing their individual needs. The ISTEA planning and management system guidance/requirements for Given the shortfall in ISTEA funding, metropolitan areas reflect sensitivity Stan Gee, FHWA raised the issue of to concerns regarding efficiency, con- flexible funding. He stated that nectivity, energy competitiveness and because of limited funding, flexibili- air quality Various factors must be ty will be “evolutionary not revolu- considered by MPOs in developing tionary, for example park-n-rides became eligible for highway con- will fit the region’s unique struction funds during the 1980’s.” needs, this is especially impor- In short the promise of ISTEA is yet tant during the development of to be maximized. the IMS. Funding by far was the headline Cooperation and partnerships topic of discussion. Funding issues during the MPO TIP process is included: important. Again this is back i- Improved mechanisms which to increased public involve- ment in the decision making will allow everyone to know how to obtain funding and process. what types of projects are Flexible funding and funding eligible. Again, the issue of innovative projects was needed increased public involvement in order to more equitably bal- in the MPO TIP selection ance highway and transit process. funding. i- The need to include major Additionally it was brought up modal operators in the MPO that there should be two ways TIP process was echoed to choose projects for funding throughout the workshop and (1) consensus at TIP time and more so in this session. It was (2) if the project is in the long recognized that those operators range plan, it should be eligible on the front lines who must for funding. deal with the public and private The “promise of ISTEA” will not sector groups on an everyday be realized as long as there is a basis should have a voice in the shortfall in the authorized fund- decision making process, as ing levels. clearly stated in the federal MPO TMA guidelines. Accord- ing to participants, the prob- Breakout Session 4, Partnerships lem is that the people rating and Intermodal Implementation: the projects are often not responsible for construction Forging partnerships and implementa- or operations. tion of intermodal projects are both pressing issues as we approach our + MPOs independence from State third year into ISTEA. The ISTEA De&- DOTS was also highlighted. It ration of Policy and the planning provi- was said that MPOs should be sions stress cooperative efforts in “brokers.” developing a National Intermodal Z- Data needs was also an issue. Transportation System. Many issues There is no need to collect or regarding cooperation and partner- initiate the development of ships were highlighted throughout the new data if you already have three-day workshop. Several comments data, the problem is whether suggested that although the intent of or not the data is reliable and the ISTEA was to enhance cooperation and partnerships in order to move past Current funding processes instill belief the planning stage, construction of that the funding of one given mode intermodal projects may not happen. It necessarily detracts from the funding was stated that as long as the MPO TIP of another. Everyone competes with process does not include participation everyone else, and projects which do in a real and meaningful way by includ- receive funds need not necessarily ing those parties impacting the MPO complement each other. Common decision making process, partnerships sense dictates that a transportation will not ever be given the opportunity corridor be considered in its entirety to develop. Funds should be distributed on the basis of what is needed to make the Bryan Clymer, Railway Systems whole corridor work more effectively, Design, noted that “intermodalism is a and what is needed to maximize net process, not a project, which involves social benefit. connections, coordination, choices and cooperation. At present, the Implementation: Planning as a friend nation is only at the phase-in stage, or foe? Intermodalism must move perhaps redefming infrastructure and from a whirlpool of planning, confer- partnerships which already exist ences and studies into a state of under the new guise of intermodal- action. Implementation is necessary to ism. Without adequate funding, inter- build credibility in the program. In the modalism will never spread beyond early stages, planning provides a the planning stage. In addition, the means to incorporate public participa- process of authorizing projects and tion, design a well liked project, and securing funds takes too long. A more secure the political support needed to efficient process might spur private implement it. At the same time, a interest in an area in which its repre- community must define its objectives sentation is sorely lacking.” and identify what is achievable. In reality, one should pursue the opti- Major themesfrom this sessionincluded: mum project subject to the con- straints of time and money versus the We cannot ignore the impact of exist- perfect project. ing government structure on the Also, neither planning nor partnering implementation of intermodal pro- will be successful unless they take on jects. Political factors could impede a specific and human form. Depend- true intermodalism. Relatively short ing on whether the planner has incor- term lengths for elected officials porated increased public involvement increase the difficulty of securing a into the decision-making process, political leadership who can stay a planning could be viewed as a friend project’s entire course of develop- or foe. Citizens’ committees, written ment. Another problem is the polar agreements, and interagency coopera- nature of funding distribution. Inter- tion all work in conjunction to move state, intermodal competition works from selecting a project to imple- against the formation of successful menting it. partnerships. Appealing to the growing environ- Matt Coogan, Consultant in Trans- mental consciousness of the nation portdtion: intermodalism co~dd be used by plan- ners as a usefu1 tactic to instill linkage In considering the implementation of projects with a sense of urgency. To intermoddl projects, it is important to date, the transportation sector has not consider whether the trend is towards capitalized on the inherent link or away from partnerships. Looking at between transit use and increased air various airport access projects, partic- quality. In NewYork, transit remains ularly in Europe, one can find evi- largely outside the realm of air quality dence of both processes. For exam- management and there is a general ple, at I.ondon’s Heathrow airport, a misconception that cleaner fuels alone potential partnership between local will alleviate the air pollution prob- tail and airline operators recently dis- lems associated with transportation. solved. The airline industry resolved Intermodal projects stand a much to build its own dedicated line into greater chance of success if they are London, concluding that independent not developed in a vacuum. One must service constituted the least cumber- alway,s be aware of the various para- some method of providing customers meters involved, one of which is the with transportation into the city. At environmental area. Frankfurt airport, on the other hand, Lufthansa established a working rela- tionship with German rail operators. Commentsby panelistsof partnershipsand implementationsession: Lufthansa acknowledges the necessity of partnerships and does not want to Martin Robins, Hudson River Water be in the business of providing Development, New Jersey Transit: ground transportation. The Hudson River Project (HRP) is a twenty mile light rail project, present- Edward O’SulIivan, Aviation Dept., ly in the implementation stage%linking Port Authority of NY & NJ: Jersey City to Bayonne. The HRP ties together various waterfront sites and, The Port Authority Airport Access pro by carrying Manhattan-bound workers gram involves construction of a dedi- to the edge of the Hudson, increases cated light tail line to link midtown the accessibility between New York Manhattan with LaGuardia and John E City and New Jersey neighborhoods Kennedy International Airports in immediately across the river. A critical Queens and provide Newark to mid- process of consensus building moved town access with a stop on the North- the HRP from the planning to the east Corridor into Penn Station NY. The implementation stage. Planning project, though conceived and admin- involved a very open and community- istered by the Port Authority, is truly a oriented structure including an adviso- partnership of many interested parties. ry committee, citizens’ groups, public The project’s steering committee meetings, newsletters and regular includes general and technical repre- mailings. The HRP also profited from a sentatives from the local, state, and fed- strong political leadership. eral government levels - alI of whom

32 recognize the importance of adequate (5) clearance requirements which may airport access in keeping current busi- limit urban tunnel use for freight cars. nesses in New York City as well as woo- In Long Island, 98% of the freight that ing new ones to the area. Second, the moves on and off the island is trans- issue of funding has halted most other ported by truck. Since LIRR is a high airport access projects. The current density commuter rail service, the project includes a $3 passenger facility implication is that it contains much charge which is expected to provide excess capacity to run freight opera- $300 million of revenue sources for tions during off-peak hours without construction of the access line. affecting the quality of passenger ser- vices First, LIRR must adopt an oper- George Cancro, Ferry Programs, Port ating system in which freight inter- Authority of NY & NJ: modal hub transfers occur without affecting passenger mobility. For The Port Authority hopes that all new example, freight cars should be ferry service will occur in the form of cleared and removed immediately public-private ventures, similar to the upon arriving at their destination, and Hoboken ferry. Such arrangements not be allowed to hamper track uti- involve for-profit private operators, lization. thus avoiding public subsidies and facilitating the speedy establishment of routes which meet consumer demand. Bernard Cohen, New York MTA: In the case of the Hoboken ferry, the Considering the issues raised by the Port Authority oversees general opera- panelists, one wonders whether there tions as well as maintains the terminals is any rhyme or reason to intermodal- on both sides of the Hudson River. ism from a regional perspective. The New York metropolitan area is multi- Parvesh Swani, Long Island Railroad: modal, but not necessarily intermodal. There are three important questions In the railroad industry, passenger and to consider for successful intermodal freight operators have maintained a project implementation: (1) What are generally antagonistic relationship, the objectives for the region? (2) How each viewing the other as a nuisance. does one develop support for a given The assets of any railroad company are project? (3) How are the entities usually owned by either a passenger or involved going to pay for a project? a freight line, who then gives operat- ing rights to the other. By mixing the two types, one always increases the operating risks involved. In addition, certain issues arise such as 1) how to price services, (2) the impact of refrig- erated freight operations on-time pas- senger performance, (3) the efficient utilization of excess capacity, albeit on a restricted time scale, (4) safety, and VI. INTERMODALTOUR REPORT

Workshop attendees were given the opportunity to participate in one of two intermodol tours, including o visit to the Port Newark/Elizabeth marine terminals and Newark International Airport.

One of the highlights of the sessions 2) By bus and ferry to Port in New York, was the opportunity for Newark and Newark Intema- participants to experience and tional Airport facilities. observe an operational point of view by actually seeing intermodalism at Port Newark/Newark International work. The Port Authority of New York Airport IntermodalTour and New Jersey staff acted as tour guides and presented an overview of Participant. of the Port NewaWEliza- the operations and plans which were beth - Newark Airport trip saw one of elements of the tour. Attendees were the largest intermodal goods move- given the choice of participating in ment distribution hubs in the world. one of two separate intermodal trips This field trip was particularly appro which were offered: priate for the conference in that it was 1) By bus and ferry to LaGuardia truly “inter-modal,” both in terms of the Airport and John F. Kennedy transportation provided for partici- Airport facilities; pants, as well as the facilities viewed.

34 A short bus trip from the hotel con- Ellis Island etc.), the ferry proceeded nected with one of the Port Imperial up the Kill Van Kull, the main ship ferries on the West side of Manhattan channel for the seaport and site of and continued for a chartered trip ongoing dredging operations. Passing down the Hudson River and across under the Bayonne Bridge (5 million New York Harbor. In the course of the vehicles/year) the ferry entered trip, the ferry passed over the Lincoln Newark Bay, and passed along the and Holland Tunnels (a total of 10 berths of the massive Port Elizabeth vehicular lanes) and the Amtrak and and Port Newark complex (2600 PATH rail tunnels (total six tracks). acres, over 19,000 feet of container ship berths, over 1 million contain- Some of the other intermodal high- ers/year). One of the highlights visible lights of the ferry trip included: from the water was the site of the frost The Hoboken Rail Terminal marine container terminal in the (served by heavy rail light (sub world opened by Sea-Land in 1956, way) rail bus and ferry opera- and long since outgrown. tions); At Port Newark, the group made New York Cross Harbor Railroad another intermodal connection and car float terminal at Greenville transferred to buses again for a land- (Jersey City), the last rail float side look at the facilities. Port Authori- operation in the ha∨ ty guides pointed out the great variety of operations taking place, including Port Authority Auto Marine Ter- automobile importing, exporting and minal at Jersey City, a special- preparation; orange juice processing ized facility for import/export (brought in refrigerated tanker vessels automobiles with landside truck from Brazil); bulk and neo-bulk prod- and rail connections; ucts (scrap, lumber, paper, etc.); and, Global Container Terminal, a of course, containers. Participants had loo-acre modern container ship time to disembark and view a scale facility with 1800 feet of berth model diagram of the port at the Sea- space; land terminal, which illustrated the infrastructure necessary to operate a The Military Ocean Terminal at modern port and provided a remark- Bayonne Yard (“MOTBY”), trans- able contrast with the older piers, fer point for many ships during which are still numerous around Man- the Desert Shield/Storm opera- hattan and Brooklyn. tions; and Before leaving the port complex for The Staten Island Ferry, opera- Newark Airport, the group had time tor of the largest passenger to stop at the Port’s ExpressRail on- ships in the world (over 6000 dock doublestack rail transfer terminal capacity). and to watch a Maersk Line ship being After passing some of the historic and “worked” (loaded or unloaded with scenic wonders of the famous Harbor containers) using several of the large (World Trade Center, Statue of Liberty, container cranes at once. Having viewed the port from the water- At Ia<;uardia Airport. the group also side, the bus trip to the nearby Newark viewed the airport improvements, while International Airport gave the partici- a presentation was being given on a pants an opportunity to travel over one major JFK/Ia<;uardia inidative in its early of the primary landside port access stages of design and environmental pro- routes and see the mixing of tmffic cessing. This involves a new Automated from both facilities as it f-lowed on to Guideway Transit system (AGT), which the regional highway system. will link the airports with major existing rrlil passenger facilities and the Central At Newark International Airport, the Business District in Itlanhattan. Funding group inspected the intra-airport for this and a similar scale project in monorail system under construction. It Newark Airport is being provided by a will link the three main airport termi- three dollar departure “Passenger Facili- nals with remote long term parking ty Charge” (PFC) now being collected at lots and car rental facilities on airport. all three airports. The monorail is due to be operational in late 1994. Stations both within the The AGT will perform several airport terminals and at the remote lots were access functions simultaneously~ inspected along with a maintenance Provide inter-terminal transit facility, all in various stages of con- within the JFK terminal area; struction. A novel feature of the mono- rail is that the stations were incorporat- Connect the terminal area with ed into the terminal designs and con- remote parking and the New struction twenty years ago. A major York City subway system at internal roadway redesign is underway Howard Beach; and a new international arrivals tcrmi- Link LGA and JFK; nal is under construction in the Termi- Serve Jamaica’s Long Island Rail- nal “B” area. road and subway stations; At Newark, the existing monorail will Link LaGuardia with the Long be the first direct airport linkage in the Island Railroad Port Washington region and explores the furthest reach- Branch and subways; and es of air/surfdce intermodal transporta- tion capabilities. Continue on into Sunnyside, Long Island City and Manhattan, termi- After reviewing the Newark operrttions, nating at Third Avenue in the East participants traveled back to the hotel Mid-town Manhattan area. by bus and were treated to an experi- ence with New York rush hour traffic. The tour buses followed the route of the proposed AGT between the two airports. LaGuardia/JFKIntermodal Tour lTse of the PFC, in the NY metro area, is the first and largest scale off-airport rail The I.aGuardia/JFK tour group viewed ground access use of these funds. Tour a large scale progmm of airport buses returned the workshop members improvements at JFK, while also see- back to the hotel after a brush with New ing the extensive air cargo facilities in York rush hour traffic, in itself a sobering action. intermodal experience.

36 VII. INTERMODALPRESENTATIONS BYr

Road (NJ Turnpike), rail, marine (Port Elizabeth) and air (Nework international Airport) transportation facilities in close proximity to each sther illustrate the importance intermodal movements of passengers and freight to the region.

Michael Huerta, nage will grow substantially for the Associate Deputy Secretary, USDOT rest of this decade.

One of the most significant issues in Because every mode represented at our society today is intermodalism, the this workshop carries that cargo or bonding element of a sprawling the people who work on it - we are national transportation system. Inter- all committed to doing everything we national trade is one of the fastest can to ensure that the intermodal growing segments of our economy freight movement is efficient and and the most obvious place where seamless. We know that no matter jobs will be generated for the rest of how efficient the individual compo this decade and beyond. Last year, the nents of the transportation system movement of 865 million metric tons may be, the key to timely movement of foreign cargo contributed $35 bil- of international freight is the inter- lion to the Gross Domestic Product. modal connection. Cargo valued at $55 billion moved Ports are the critical transfer points through this Port (Port Newark/Eliza- between land and water modes. Any beth), the second highest dollar figure bottlenecks at the ports threaten sys- of any port in the country With all the tem efficiency. For this reason we events on the scene today (i.e., must consider both the landside and NAFTA, the recent GAIT agreement), waterside infrastructure of the entire it’s a safe prediction that cargo ton- system.

37 Thus, it’s no exaggeration that our ism. You have always provided the competitiveness in the international ideas and the action for progress. marketplace and our national securiq A good example is your freight inter- depend upon the intermodal connec- modal case study -Circumferential tions we make in the next three and a Commercial Corridor. This study half years. With “just in time” manu- addresses reliability> connectivity and facturing now a common practice flexibility-mobility concerns which worldwide, the intermodal connec- were the key intermodal themes of tions take on added importance ISTEA. because ocean carriers provide fur- ther value-added services in the trans- As you’ve heard the past day and a portation and distribution chain. half, we are here to enlist you in a part- These include consolidation, labeling, nership that will pay rich dividends for logistics management and warehousing. your region and this nation. We want to work with you to build region by Systems for bringing together water region the safest, most efficient, most transport, airports. rail and trucking fo accessible transportation system in the facilitate the efficient movement of world. We need your leadership. intermodal freight at our ports must “We’re all in this together,” and by be a national priority. We can no working together, we will all benefit. longer afford to have the Interstate Highway ending four blocks from the The Office of Intermodalism is the marine terminal. keeper of a broad national perspective of transportation activities. Although I ISTEA recognizes the importance of began on an intermodal freight note, intermodalism for efficient transporta- we are concerned with moving people tion systems and the necessity for in and out of Atlanta during the 1996 sound, modern infrastructure, includ- summer Olympics as we are moving ing border crossing facilities, for meet- freight through the Alameda Corridor ing future transportation requirements. from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Let’s step back for a moment and look Angeles, or moving freight across the at where you fit into this national pri- L.S./Mexico Border. ority. It’s very appropriate that we come here to the Port of New York We are as concerned with integrating a and New Jersey. which is sort of the high speed rail network into an inter- birth place of intermodalism, to begin modal passenger system as we are our nationwide dialogue on how to with facilitating dredging work at the work together and link up America’s Port of New York. (Incidentally, Secre- transportation system. From the 1950’s tary Pena seized on the port dredging when Malcolm McLean shipped the issue very early on and committed his first containers from Port Newark, department to sit down with the New Jersey, to Houston. Texas, on an Corps of Engineers to see if the oil tanker and started a revolution in process can be made to work better. ocean shipping, to the present date, If there ever was a case for reinventing transportation people in this bi-state government, it’s on the port dredging area have been leaders in intermodal- process.) But the point is this: The Administmtion much more. We have to develop a bet- keeps a broad perspective as to the ter public understanding of the word modes, passengers and cargo, and intermodalism in order to be success- regions of the country. And it’s one of ful. I don’t believe in wasting time try- my main duties to maintain that perspec- tive and share it with you in the regions. My office also is the facilitator for pr@ jects that cross modal lines and raise significant questions of who is in charge and what funds can be used. (For example, the Alameda Corridor Project would benefit the communities and Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach by consolidating port-generated rail and truck movements within a sin- gle corridor. This project is a test case for speeding up the federal permitting and review processes.) And it’s the coordinator of modal activ- ities that contribute to better inter- modal planning within the Department of Transportation and among our cus- tomers. (For example, through the efforts of the Office of Intermodalism, a decision was reached among the hlithael Huerta, USDOT Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation was a keynote speaker at the mA, MARAD, the Coast Guard and FAA Intermodal Workshop. He outlined the national inter- to designate the FHWA as the lead modal policy which also takes into account economic agency for the Multimodal Center at development and competitive issues. Miami International Airport.) Recent activities of the Office of Inter- modalism have been taking an advoca- ing to define the term. I believe that cy role in rulemakings. Secretary Pena understanding will come when pea- has stressed that the Department must ple see the tremendous job-generating find practical solutions to real world benefits of intermodalism -and that problems. He has made it a high priori- will come very soon if you will join us ty to eliminate needless regulations in making it happen. and to work with our customers to This meeting is a good start. Some of resolve problems. the revelations that have come forth We’ve also taken an advocacy position in the last day and a half of dialogue on a number of freight issues, on tech- here have emphasized that all of us - nical assistance projects and in out- at every level of government - in reach programs such as this one. This every mode of transportation - need is a good start, but we will be doing to be more creative in looking at ways

39 to improve and sustain our transporta- Historically, New York more than tion systems. As I said at the outset other cities, had two competing “we are all in this together.” trends-public transportation advc+ cates and highway and bridge advo- “Civilization,” historian Arnold Toyn- cates. As such, while intermodal bee has written, “is a movement not a worked in some respects, much of condition; a voyage, not a harbor.” our transportation system, primarily Transportation, I suggest, is both a the highway system, was built exclu- movement and voyage. We are pro- sively for cars-either for commuting pelled by change, and innovation is or recreational purposes. the only safe harbor we will ever We all have heard the stories of know. The innovation and change of Robert Moses constructing parkways this decade and the 2 1st century rests with insufficient clearance for buses, today in a truly unified intermodal and while public transportation was transportation system. discussed prior to the construction of the highway system serving our air- Lucius Riccio, ports, it never made it into the first Commissioner, New York City DOT major plan. Beyond its name, ISTEA will allow us Each generation, and each discipline to make our city a true intermodal for that matter, has a word or concept center. Let me give you just a few that captures the mood of the period examples that the New York City and the direction of thought. No word Transportation Department is working better captures the direction of trans- on. Our bridges, the four East River portation planning than intermodal. bridges were built as public trans- New York City is appropriately recog- portation facilities, carrying trolleys nized as the intermodal center of the and trains, as well as pedestrians and nation. Our trains, subways, buses vehicles. Today, of course, with the connect into an almost seamless web exception of the Manhattan and of public transportation, linking each Williamsburg Bridges, no trains utilize facility at critical points or stations. these structures, nor pedestrians in Yet public transportation use contin- some cases, and buses must compete ues in its downward trend, with 53 for space with other vehicles. This percent of New Yorkers using public winter, DOT will implement a high transportation to commute in 1990 occupancy vehicle lane on the compared to 56 percent in 1980 and Queensboro Bridge so buses coming 62 percent in 1970. In order for us to to Manhattan in the morning receive capture or recapture the market for priority. public transportation we have to Also, our engineers have redesigned make intermodal a reality beyond sub- the construction on the Queensboro way and rail connections. We need to Bridge to allow the Port Authority’s reexamine all of our facilities to see Automated Guideway Transit system how we can better meet people’s trav- to travel across the bridge and provide eling and commuting needs. a Manhattan connection. Similarly, designs for the Williamsburg Bridge combination of services for moving will allow future generations to add goods and people. I want to begin with additional trains, much as the designs some lessons learned from the Port and construction work in the 1950’s Authority’s efforts in meeting our man- allowed for additional vehicles on the date to ensure adequate, reliable inter- Brooklyn Bridge. state movement of people and goods. Water transportation was the basis of My agency acted three years ago to New York’s growth, and will hopefully merge three separate departments become more appealing in years within the Port Authority which man- ahead. The Staten Island Ferry, which aged our bi-state surface transporta- has been operated by the city since tion facilities and planned with others 1905, remains our town’s premier for meeting future needs. ferry. Because of the fire several years We like to reflect on this as our recog- ago, we are prepared to build a world nition that intermodalism is here to class intermodal facility that will stay as we merged our planning; rail; enhance connections to buses and to terminals, bridge and tunnel crossings the subway by building the terminal under one Interstate Transportation in such a way that the subway is actu- Department responsible for the move- ally inside the terminal itself. ment of both passengers and freight.

Richard Kelly, Many of you are probably familiar with at least the names of our key Director, Interstate Transportation, facilities. North to south they include Port Authority of NY & NJ the George Washington Bridge and Though 0uT region is an intermodal Bus Terminal; the Port Authority Bus leader, we don’t have here or in most Terminal; the Lincoln Tunnel (includ- other American business centers the ing the Exclusive Bus Lane); the Hol- level of efficient, intermodal transporta- land Tunnel; the PATH rapid transit tion found in some foreign gateways. system; the joint venture Hoboken We need to do better. The reality of ferry; and the three Staten Island our technology-enhanced society is Crossings. that business does not have to locate in These facilities are a significant force an urban center to have access to its in the regional economy. They serve markets. With modern communica- nearly all of the region’s 15 million tions, technology businesses can locate people by making vital connections just about anywhere. Corporations for businesses and consumers, and for now make location decisions based on commuters and families. Our bi-state three critical factors (1) quality of life: facilities handle over 500,000 com- (2) the availability of a trained labor muters on a typical workday. Com- force; and (3) accessibility. mercial activity in the region also is Keeping our bigcity regions competi- heavily reliant on the facilities we tive and livable is likely to take an operate, with in excess of 7 million inspired effort, using all the modes trucks annually utilizing our interstate available to us to get the most effective crossings. Intermodalism is what makes our bi- working together to collect essential state linkages work. With the other freight data to develop a sound plan- regional transportation agencies, we ning foundation to build and improve use rapid transit, commuter rail, autos, our ability to move goods in this region.

Richard Kelly, Director, Interstate Transportation Department, Port Authority of NY&NJ, addressed regional mobility concerns and their impact to the New York/New Jersey economy.

buses and ferries to carry those half a Trucks on our crossings move more million commuters every weekday. cargo tonnage than the region’s ports That’s like moving the whole popula- and airports combined - often carrying tion of Denver back and forth goods that hours ago were on a freight between New York and New Jersey train from the Midwest, a freighter from each day. Europe, or a “747” from Asia. There are also essential freight move- Intermodalism is the art of finding the ment linkages that require close coop fastest, cheapest, most reliable ways to eration with the region’s transporta- get somebody or something from Point tion providers. We have taken initial A to Point B. Another word for that is steps with both the NY and NJ State efficiency, and it’s no accident that Departments of Transportation in those two words come together in the

42 b name of the nation’s new blueprint for interests to meet customer needs. better surface transportation -1STEA. This has become particularly evident to the PA through our success with Along with the Clean Air Act, ISTEA the joint venture Hoboken to Battery demands a new standard of perfor- Park ferry service. We see ferries play- mance-based transportation manage- ing an even more significant role in ment to meet a lot of goals: personal this region for both the movement of mobility, competitive commercial ser- people and goods. vices, cleaner air, and community input. In looking long-range at the markets ISTEA gives us some of the tools to the Port Authority serves, efficiency blend the needs of business and the requires making improvements that economy by placing greater emphasis will serve and shape growing demand. on more environmentally friendly Our strategy includes targeted invest- modes, including HOVs, transit and rail ments involving all the modes we use freight. It isn’t going to be easy ISTEA now, along with support for improved directed the states and metropolitan approaches to our facilities and wider planners to prepare long-term trans- use of rail and waterborne options for portation plans, and made federal aid moving freight. Like every other more flexible. That’s a start. agency, our budgetary limits are real. ISTEA falls short, though, on two But we can’t afford to let that limit counts. It doesn’t really increase flexi- our imagination, because the solutions ble funding to levels that match the here and in similar regions more and sharply higher performance standards more will be intermodal, and multi- the new federal laws mandate. And it agency. We can’t afford not to include does not fully recognize the genuine our customers in making our plans for problems of meeting regionally scaled the future. federal goals in areas governed by Real efficiency will pay off. The many local jurisdictions in more than promise of real efficiency is that it will one state. However, with patience and attract public support. And that’s a sense of common purpose, regions what will make new investments pos- like ours can take advantage of the sible and affordable. new federal direction. My agency’s experience suggests that intermodal- ism is a key ingredient for success. The Honorable Robert Roe, Intermodal corridors, multi-modal solu- Former U.S. Congressman (D - NJ) tions, and funding pooled across There were a lot of key points/issues modes - that’s what intermodalism in the ISTRA that people are begin- means to us. ning now to understand. Let’s not kid It means putting customer benefits and ourselves - all of the dreams we’re regional gains ahead of turf, and over- going to have in the world don’t go coming modal biases that ignore the any place unless you can arrange for a market realities of human behavior and way to get things done. business needs. It means working with How can we implement an “Action a mix of both public and private sector Agenda” for ISTEA in this country and how could we make something work that comes from dealing with ninety- in the country and get it done? I’m seven senators and members of the not totally consumed or absorbed in House. each one with their own ideas the transportation issue -1 served in of what the direction should be. We Congress for twenty-three years and knew that our goal was to change we worked on a whole series of vcr) national policy and there was a reason important national politics. but ISTEA to change national policy. and its mission became to me a much This is not a transportation bill alone. broader issue. not just a dream. but a Those people who come back and say purpose for this country and where - well we’re talking about tranSporta- we are going:. The reality that we have tion hcrc and we’re talking about to fact is that the old wa!’ of doing lntermodalism. It is not that kind of a business is over and people have lo piece of legislation. IC is a conglomer- understand that quickI?.. When some- ate piece of legislation that points to body mentioned the forces of changes the direction this country will go eco- and forces of rcalit); the), sho1~IcIalso nomically in the global marketplace. mention the forces of prejudict’ and When we went to the floor of the sonic people’s minds who arc just HOLlSCthe debate on Intermodalism glut-d on the old way. The old way is lasted three &~yvsand here we brought over. forth this giant new policy which I%xq~le who ha\xz spent ;I lit‘ttimc. e\.erybody was rightfully proud of and including me, in public office. ta!king they had a great many people working about transportation areas particularl>; on it and man) people in the public WC become glued on the one thing. sector worked on it including proba- that is the \\rhole solution c?‘cr! time bly some of you, too. We’re rdttling off we have a problem in transportatiotl~ Intermodalism and we made an we use that basis to make our dcci- assumption. We thought people sion. That’s not w’rong, that’s how we understood what we were talking are - we’re human beings. Kit wc aboLlt. have to tell new administrators and I3ob Walker, from Pennsylvania, served people in public 0fGcc no\v to look to an enormous purpose in the whole the future. What were \vc’ trying to horning of the ISTEX legislation and achieve? What ~vas the idea of ISTEAS he came back and he took the well \‘ou ha\Tz to educate people ant1 )X)11 after we had made the explanations. have to understand what lSTI3 Norman Mineta and I and, of course, means. so before )ULI can implcmcnt Senator Moynihan on the Senate side, ISTEA you‘ve got to understand what are laboring over this new policy and they meant when they \\‘rotc it. you feel kind of puffed up and that Library of Congress and we brought it money.” He goes on a tirade and says, back and had it blown up so that, “we don’t know what Intermodalism when we went to debate the next day, is - I don’t know what these people we could make our point. are talking about.” This is all part of We labored in with the chart, turned how laws are made. He was making it around and they didn’t quite know his point and, besides, you can’t even what we were going to do in the well fmd an explanation of Intermodalism of the Congress. When our time came in the dictionary. It’s not even in the in the debate to respond, we went dictionary ahead and we brought forth this great So what is this new thing that they’re achievement from the Library of Con- bringing to the floor of the House gress blown up five times its size. which spends more money and may “Don’t you read? Can’t the gentleman cost the taxpayers more money - it’s from Pennsylvania see what this is all not going to achieve anything and so about? Here’s what the dictionary forth and so on. The vote is going on says. Don’t you have a dictionary?” for three days and this is the first day Thank God we have the Library of of the debate and it goes on down Congress. and we ftish up because the battle You will always have those people will take place the following day. I go who oppose you and your ideas just back to the office and I say, “hey wait for the sake of opposition, no matter a minute” to our people and I tell the justification. It doesn’t matter to them to get some dictionaries so I can look behind it and understand what look something up. I want to see the goals are, what you’re trying to what the dictionary says Intermodal- achieve, it’s easier to be negative. You ism is. We looked in the dictionary get better pressure, better attention if and Mr. Walker was right, it wasn’t in you’re negative. The point is, this con- the regular daily dictionaries. How ference is about trying to build some- could this be? Here we have devel- thing and trying to make something oped an entire policy and transporta- work, which was the theme of all tion economics for the United States, three of your presentations this morn- and it wasn’t there. ing -let’s get on with it! We can’t Now we have to go back and debate debate it for the next twenty years - with Bob the next day, and I can’t go we know what we’re doing - go for it! back to the floor of the House and say Where did it come from? It took years to them that we looked it up in the of preparation to put together what dictionary and you were right. You we meant. We recognized some very can’t do that in the debate. So we got basic issues which I think any citizen in touch with the Library of Congress. who understands the country can rec- Something is obviously wrong here ognize themselves. The focus in Amer- because we know there is such a ica is on the economy of the country. word as Intermodalism and we put The rebuilding of infrastructure, that’s the Library of Congress to work. They pork, by the way. Pork is in your area went through more concise dictionar- if it’s affecting you and you’re taking ies, and low and behold, of course its from me, or I oppose your project. It

45 doesn’t matter whether it’s Intermodal is the case out in the Asiatic area. or whatever, the easiest way to attack Now we’ve got to fight to be able to is to say it’s pork and a boon-doggle. I maintain that quality. We have to be had a very prominent person call me able to maintain our ability to com- yesterday from Washington to say that pete, and that was part of the decision when we refine the Intermodal bill in that was made in the ISTEA bill. That’s the next go around, we want Co be what we interpreted the competitive- able to take out some of these special ness issue to be, and we brought demonstration projects lxcausc another point up. You hear all these they’re pork. Where do you have the people saying we have to have all right to say a special demonstration these new things, we need a new project is pork? health-care program, we need better education, we need better transporta- The whole basis of the transportation tion, we need better this and better system in this country was based on that. How are we going to pay for it large demonstration projects. The \x:ith a three trillion dollar deficit? George Washington Bridge was a demonstration project. Could you Part of the decision-making here was build such a structure in that era? that we wanted to be able to help Would it work? We’re talking about America create the new wealth for jobs for Americans, we’rc talking America. Where will the revenues about America’s competitiveness, all come from, short of taxation directly of this went into the decision-making. upon the people? Where will the rev- When people use the word competi- enues come from to be able to pro- tiveness, what do they mean? When vide the fiscal resources we need to we talk about competitiveness, we are improve the quality of life for the peo- saying that, in the year 1003, these ple of this country. We can’t print it. decisions were made in this legislation It‘s not going to come from there, it’s based on a recognition that, unless going to come from how we battle in America really gets into the global the International marketplace and marketplace in every respect so that how we improve the business climate WC are a competitor in the global in this country and the revenues economy, we will lose out. We’re los- derived coming into this country. We ing out right now and we have to be knew and understood that and that able to make that attack. was part of the decision that was made in writing the ISTEA. If you’ve been to China recently or the Far East or to Korea, the dynamics In New Jersey, talk about intermodal- explode around us: crdnes all over the ism, we have the turnpike, one of the place, building infrastructure, building largest, most dynamic trdnsportation productivity, building factories and systems in the world running north facilities for improving the qualiv of and south through our state. The Port life of the people of this world. Major Authority is spending a lot of money competitors to LISgo to IJnitcd Europe on improving access to Newark Inter- today and see what’s happening. Are national Airport and then, nearby they uniting because economicall) there is Port Elizabeth, this enormous they want to make it? Yes they do. port where goods and materials are They want our marketplace and shipped. You see these facilities and they’re fighting for our marketplace as you notice that you can’t get to them,

46 you can’t get from one to the other, where you can do precisely what literally and figuratively. If you talk you’re doing now. You are interpret- about Intermodalism, you must bring ing what we meant, but don’t lose the them together. broad theme as to the why of it, not We ought to be able to devise trans- just what does it mean. The why of it portation systems that are efficient is it’s the economic policy and direc- and effective. When we used to devise tion for the country, a major policy legislation in the public works com- change, recognizing that the trans- munity, we’d have a separate bill for portation system in moving goods the highway program, we worked from point A to point B is an enor- hard, we had our hearing, and we mous cost. If you land a ship here in signed that bill and that bill was a Elizabeth and you load the trucks that great achievement for transportation. are in line to take the goods from that We would do the aviation bill over port and that ship and that container here, we worked hard on that aviation is overweight, too bad. You either bill, and these were new ideas and take the container and run the risk of new dramatics and so forth and we the fines and taxes you are going to passed that bill and we applauded our- pay on the turnpike, or you’d get out selves. What a great job we did! Then of line and maybe out of business. we would do the water resources bill Now shouldn’t there be international for improving our ports and inland standards that are established for the waterway transportation system and packaging and moving of materials, we would applaud ourselves and say because, in order to be Intermodal, what a good job we did except for you are going to eventually move mate- one point: they didn’t relate to each rials on trucks. They have to fit on other. We were absolutely countervail- trucks, they have to fit on ships, and ing the efforts we were trying to per- they have to fit on airplanes, so there- form and we were wasting money. fore, it’s ludicrous for us not to have There was no institutional mechanism some kind of standards and policies for if you built an airport to get a road to that. That’s part of what ISTEA is talk- it because you were not allowed ing about. So, intermodality is very under the law to build a road to an air- simple. It is not complicated. Don’t let port. Now don’t ask me why. I have bureaucracy make it complicated, keep no particular reason to talk about our it loose. It was meant to be loose. It old prejudices. We had to change the was meant to be applied. Our goal was minds set of the Congress of the IJnit- to develop a national Intermodal trans- ed States. The assumption was that portation system that moves people you go to the Congress and somebody and goods in an energy efficient man- says that we’re going to watch out for ner. Why an energy efficient manner? boondoggling and we have to look So we can be competitive in the global out for somebody getting funding for market place. Energy efficient because some project that isn’t worthwhile. we recognize that 66% of imported oil That’s not the way it works. It does goes to transportation. A single penny, not work that way and it’s not going a gallon difference, or a dollar differ- to work that wdy whether I’m there ence on a barrel of fuel or a barrel of or somebody else is there. crude oil coming from the Middle East So we recognized that we had to pre can totally change your competitive- vide a mechanism with imagination ness and efficiency.

47 This blueprint for the nation’s future health care program. Nobody is economic restoration must confront opposed to the health care program, head on the enormous challenges of but unless you provide this to build the global economy, our declining that infrastructure system which cre- productivity growth, ener&F viability ates the new wealth that is needed to and air pollution. I don’t want to over- run this nation with hundreds of mil- look that in the need to build Ameri- lions of people. we will not be able to ca’s infrastructure. The American move ahead. infrastructure can never be referred to The ISTFA bill has as its very founda- as a boon-doggie or a waste of the tax- tion the Clean Air Act. We meant it to payers money. WC know that ever) be that way. If you’re doing anything dollar and penny that is spent on the with transportation, particularly in the improvements, whether it’s spent on Northeast or California, don’t make reservoirs and dams or harbors or any plans, don’t make any grandiose highways or transportation programs, ideas until you understand the Clean provide a return of at least 20 fold. Air Act. First, because the Clean Air If our forefathers didn’t build the tuti- Act comes back and says the follow- nels and the bridges and so forth. the ing: you will have to reduce the air country would not operate. It is that pollution in the northern part of New simple. Just take the George Washing- Jersey, particularly since, of the 21 ton Bridge. We built that for around counties, 19 are considered at the 143 million dollars and it was a veq level of Los Angeles as far as air pollu- limited cost when we built the tants are concerned. Clean Air comes George Washington Bridge. If )‘ou back and says that if you do not do tried, you couldn’t build the George that, you will lose your transportation Washington Bridge today because money or it will be set aside. you’d never get passed an environ- Those of us who live in New Jersey mental impact statement. We have have to look to New York because the paid for that George Washington Clean Air Act says something else. Not Bridge ten times over, which is won- only do you have an MPO in the derful. So. did it create an opportuni- Northern part of the state of New Jer- ty? How about those people out in the sey with the 14 counties involved, but midwest where we have all the flood- ~OLImust also have a compatible plan ing? Billions of dollars of damage. The with New York City regionally. That is President speaks of two and a half bil- the law. So, if you’re going to build lion dollars. but it will probably be 10 anything or you’re going to plan any to 15 billion dollars at least, without capital projects, the first and foremost counting the direct impact upon the issue that must be considered is how hundreds of thousands of citizens does it fit in with the Clean Air Act there because they didn’t want to and how does it work? build the flood structures they need. They didn’t want to improve and put ISTEA has given enormous authority the dikes up. So, where did we gain? to the members of the MPO’s who decide where the funding will be Members of Congress refuse to put expended that’s been allocated to the proper funding into infrastructure them through the funding that comes fundamentally because that‘s boon- from the Federal Government for doggling or we must spend it for our transportation. It’s got to meet the

48 fundamental test that the capital them work so it makes sense - if investments and improvements that you’re going to improve Newark Air- you’re making are reducing the air port, you have to get people there! pollution. Therefore, the Clean Air Act Therefore, you can’t absolve yourself becomes the fundamental basic act to from the accessibility issues. determine how we will move capital I think that Rich Roberts, Port Authori- improvement in transportation sys- ty, said that “Roe dreams his ambi- tems. There’s another element tions.” I guess when you serve a life- involved, that is, the enormous flexi- time and you’re really into something, bility which was terribly difficult to the people give us that opportunity to win politically. We came back and said learn. That information has got to be in the House and on the floor and in shared and used. This can be done. It the conference, why should New Jer- should not take 10 years to pass regu- sey be telling New York what to do lations to determine what they meant. with their transportation money? Why should Montana be telling California? We’re talking about economies, we’re Why should there not be a flexibility talking about efficiencies, we’re talking allowing the states to make the funda- about making America No. 1, as I see mental decisions they have to make? it, as far as our international issue is That’s a point you’re making today: concerned. Also, don’t leave out one they are in the best position to know other terribly important phase, the what to do to be able to meet their IVHS issue. needs. If you’re going to build something, The legislation provides that the state build it right. I heard on the news the basically can come back and the Gov- other day that now you can go through ernor can make a decision if the need turnstiles here and you don’t have to is greater in this particular area or that stop, you go right through. Every- particular area or there is a project body’s applauding. Isn’t that exciting? that is to be completed because it is In northern New Jersey, do we have to critically important. Then he can have people backed up in every town transfer those funds from point A to and every community simply because point B. In fact, he can probably trans- we’re waiting to get through a toll fer 95% of the funding allocated to the booth? That’s old hat. That’s old tech- State in all particular directions to that nology. We can go ahead and improve particular project to get it done. that technology right now. So, if I’m to have any value to you You’re going to fmd in your lifetime here this morning then you have to that as this bill is understood and as say to yourself, can we move ahead this bill unfolds, it does not limit your and can we get it done? Yes! Is it horizon to a piece of concrete or there? Is the decision process there? another cab or another car on the Yes! Do we need 17,000 new regula- transit system. Look at transportation tions? No! It shouldn’t take 10 or 15 as a system, look at it as the economic years to put this in motion. Go and dynamics of the country - the rebuild- start it out. Intermodalism is not com- ing of America, the future of the coun- plicated! We’re simply saying when try. I really believe that the success of you’re planning your transportation this measure will depend on your system put them together and make decisions. VIII. IMPLEMENTINGAN INTERMODAL MANAGEMENTSYSTEM [II

Intermodal rail terminals serve as the land-sea link to move internationol morine cargo to and from inlnnd markets.

By Dane Ismart, Therefore, to overcome these limita- Intermodal Branch, FI-IWA tions, State and local planning agencies must use existing data resources to The key to successfully implementing develop an intermodal management sys an intermodal management system is tern that is issue oriented. Intermodal simplification. Data requirements and planning issues would address the evaluation techniques of intermodal movement of both people and goods b transportation strategies and actions all modes or combination of modes. must be kept simple because of limited Issues would include not only physical State planning resources. An even more constraints but legal, regulatory, and limiting factor is the non-existence or financial limitations to efficient inter- lack of access of detailed intermodal modal transportation. data as well as technical planning prc~ cedures for evaluating traffic between A typical list of basic categories for limited modes. Attempts to establish a developing intermodal planning and sophisticated data intensive intermodal management system issues by a State management system may lead to failure. or local planning agency are: a. Physical limitations to inter- of intermodal facilities, but would be modal movement. the cornerstone for determining how various transportation strategies and b. Accessibility of intermodal facil- investments would impact the move- ities. ment of people and goods as part of c. Transferability and coordination an overall transportation system. between modes. For an intermodal management sys- d. Legal and regulatory constraints tem to be implementable, the perfor- to intermodal transportation. mance measures must be based on e. Delivery and collection systems data that is available or easily accessi- for intermodal facilities. ble by the State and local planning f. Safety of intermodal facilities agencies. There are literally hundreds and systems. of performance measures that could be used as part of an intermodal man- g. Economic and environmental agement system. The proposed sys- tradeoffs between modes. tem presented in this technical guid- The successful intermodal manage- ance represents a basic structure that ment system will address each of these could be implemented by most States issues by establishing performance with a reasonable amount of effort. measures and standards for evaluating Since intermodal planning involves the operation of intermodal transporta- both people and goods, the proposed tion systems. Not only would the per- performance measures and standards formance measures and standards be listed below consist of two compo- used to evaluate the current operations nents: freight and passengers.

I- Dane Irmart, FHWA briefed participants on the federal guidance which will assist state and local officiols develop and implement an effective Intermodal Management System (MS). PERFORMANCEMEASURES AND STANDARDS- FREIGHT

CATEGORY/ISSUE MEASURE STANDARD -__ __-.-

A. PHYSICALLIMITATIONS

Ihhlcstacking & Structural l’c-rtical .! I ’ 0” liailroaci ( :Icwx~ct No. Restrict. A EltxWihWon 5% Kail Mile. I3 10% Rail Mile. c

(hndition Of Pxvmt. 30 years A Struct. Access I‘0 25 wars R Jntcmmocia~i~aciiit) 20 \‘cars <: 15 >vxrs II

B. TERMINALACCESSIBILITY TIME

~capol-t I‘r;lvei ‘I‘itnc From 5 Min. A Airport ‘I’crniinai ‘1’0 Major 10 Min. n ‘i‘ruck ‘I‘crminal Aftcrial (jr Access 15 .Min. <: Rail Terminal (:ontrolicd I’;lcilit) 20 Min. I)

C. DELIVERYAND COLLECTION SYSTEMS OFFSTREET LOADING & UNL.CAPACITY

Freight Deiivcq At Major Centers Of Major C:enters Of Activit!, 1OO’X = A $w’% = 13 8O’!i~ = c:

Truck I>eliwq~ & Loading ‘I’imc J;or I)eIivery 10 Min A Jntcrference With Or Loading 15 Min. H Street Traffic 20 LMitl. c 30 Min. I) Off Jbk J>eliveq Of Pcwcnt 1)eliwwci Freight Off I’cak

D. TRANSFERABILITY8 COORDINATION TIME

Freight ‘Transfer ‘I’ransfcr ‘I’imc Ship To Rail Stmdards nctwern MOOCH Hctween Motlcs Ship To Truck Based On Truck To Rail ~I-iWte Rail To Rail Carrier ‘I’ruck To Ttwk E~pten~e

52 CATEGORY/ISSUE MEASURE STANDARD

D. TRANSFERABILITY& COORDINATION (CONTINUED) TIME

Interference Of Movement Delay Time & Rai I Rail Speed Between Modes For Speed of modes Crossing 50 -= A At Grade Crossings Highway 40 = B 30 = c: 20 = I)

IIighway Delay Time Avg. Veh. Delay At RR Crossings 3 Min. A 5 Min. B 7 Min. C 9 Min. I)

Highway Delay Time Avg. Veh. 1)&I)’ At Bridge Openings 3 Min. A 5 Min. B 7 Min. <: 9 Min. I>

Ih)rage Between Distance In Miles 0 A Modes 2 B c: I)

E. SAFETY

Railroad/Highway Accidents/Million Fatal/Injury klfet)’ Crossings Vehicles Exposed Rate

Standard Based On State Kates

F. LEGALOR REGULATORY PERSHIPMENT UNIT

Customs and Time - Hrs. 0 - 1 Hr. Processing Administrative 1 - 2 Hr. 2 - 4 IIr. 4-8Hr.

Railroad Freight Liability Degree Of No Liability For Passenger Liabilit) Limited Railroad Usage FL111 PERFORMANCEMEASURES AND STANDARDS- PASSENGERS

CATEGORY/ISSUE MEASURE STANDARD

A. PHYSICALLIMITATIONS V/C RATIO

Park & Ride Lots Volume ‘1’0 (Intermodal ($xlcit)~ >I.0 F Terminals) Ratio Of’ 1.o E Parking .95 I) Spaces I)Llring -92 c Peak Periods

Pavement Structure (See Freight Measures) Access 7’0 Passenger Terminals

Pedestrian Access

Lrban Areas

Pedestrian Pedestrian X-ing A = l/8 JMile Limitations At Major Per Mile of Major B = l/4 Mile Generators ArtcTials & C = l/2 Mile Limited Access D = j/ii Mile Facilities

B. TERMINALACCESSIBILITY TIME

Access To 19 From Travel Time Major Intermodal Hetween Terminal 10 Min. A Passenger Termindk And Major 20 Min. B (Air, Sea, Rail, Activit),

C. DELIVERYAND COLLECTION ACCESS

Number Of Modal LModeAkern. Choices 5 = A 4 = B Passenger Feeder System 3 = C To Intermodal Facility 2 = D 1 = E

D. TRANSFERABILITY& COORDINATION

Time Passenger Transfer Transfer Time 2 Mm. A Between Modes Between Modes 5 Mm. B 8 Min. C 11 Min. D

Highway - Ferry Boat Queuing Time Avg Veh Wait Coordination 10 Min. A 15 Min. B 20 Min. C 30 Mm. D 45 Min. E

E. SAFETY

Railroad/Hi&way See Freight Safety Crossing Performance Measures

Pedestrian Crossing Accidents/Million Fatality/ Crossings Injury Rate Standard Based On State Rates

Bicycle Crossings/ Accidents/ Fatality/ Joint Usage 100,000 Bicyc. Injury Rate F. LEGALAND REGULATORY actions such as these examples will cause economic changes resulting in mode shifts of passengers and freight. Refer To Freight PerformanceMeasures Methods for evaluating impacts as part The performance measures and stan- of the comprehensive transportation dards as presented in this paper outline planning process would include the tra- a basic approach for evaluating inter- ditional travel demand modelling modal strategies and actions. However, process, diversion curves, trend analysis, it is expected that a State or local plan- and economic forecasting procedures. ning agenqP will expand or modify the In summary, identification of intermodal performance measures in accorclancc’ transportation issues will be the key in with their transportation needs. Stan- developing an implementable inter- dards for the pc&rmanct* measures modal management system. After the will also vaq’ by area. For example, issues have been identil?ed, the develop- New York planning agencies will riced ment of performance measures and stan- different performance measures and dards will provide the framework for an standards for the movement of contain- intermodal management system. Finally, ers from the ports than West Virginia the transportation planning process will in the movement of coal. take the results of the intermodal man- Hopefully. the performance measures agement system as well as the other in the technical intermodal guidelines management systems and determine the are broad enough to evaluate the trans- economic and environmental tradeoffs portation strdtegies, actions. and poli- of the intermodal transportation strate- cies of State and local transportation gies, actions, and policies. agencies. Where new or unique inter- modal stmtegies or actions are pro- posed, modifications to the perfi)r- STATEDOT AND MPO INTERMODAL mance measures will have to be ma&. PLANNING ISSUES Although performance measures and standards play an important part in an I. Physical Limitations intermodal management s)w3n. there A. Structurdl vertical clearance for are issues which must be addressed as doublestacking and railroad part of a compreliensivc transportation electrification. planning process. Issues such as dcter- IS. Structural integrity and remdin- mining the economic or c-nvironmental ing pavement life of highway tradeoffs between modes when apply- access to intermodal facilities. ing different stmtcgies and actions C. Bridge weight restrictions. must be determined as part of a com- prehensive planning process. Examples D. Horizontal radii limiting truck of strategies and policies that would movements to intermodal facili- require a planning analJ,sis include ties. legalization of triple trnilers, weight E. Limited pedestrian crossings of restriction changes and energy tax poli- major arterials and limited cies. Projects and transportation access facilities.

56 II. Accessibility VI. legal & Regulatory A. Accessibility time and cost to A. User fees and subsidization of intermodal facilities. transportation modes. B. Accessibility to bike and trail B. Truck weight limitations. facilities. C. Liability of freight rail lines for C. Des&mated truck routes. transit usage. D. Truck route restrictions. III. Transferability and Coordination E. State multimodal trust funds & A. Movement interference between funds eligibility. modes at highway-railroad cross- ings. VII. Economics & Environmental B. LMovement interference between Economic tradeoffs between modes at highway-waterwa) A. crossings. modes and combinations of modes. c. Congestion and delays created by drayage. B. Air, noise, and wetland impacts of intermodal facilities. D. Passenger transfer delays between modes. c. Economic impact of rdilroad abandonment. E. Highway-ferry boat transfer delays.

IV. Delivery and Collection INTERMODAL TERMINAL DATA A. Passenger feeder systems to intermodal facilities. Size of Facility B. Iand-side access to airports and + Annual tonnage and/or volume by harbors. mode C. Freight delivery at major centers of activity. Rail Access D. Truck delivery and loading inter- Vertical clearance (can/cannot handle ference with street traffic. double-stack) E. Peak and off-peak delivery of Wdximum safe speed freight. Number of grade crossings by average E Availability of park & ride lots. daily traffic 011highway Track (single/double) V. Safety Rail car volumes (annual average) A. Highway-Railroad crossing safety. B. Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety. Freeway Access for Trucks C. Hazardous materials shipment. + Over-the-road distance from facility to freeway Truck loading and Unloading

+ Percent of docks in use dilring peak period?; i- AL tmpc daily truck arrivals and dt’par- turcs divided 13!,peak hour arrib2ls and departures (a turn-ovc~r r,ltr which Incasues the extent to wllich demand is spread over the day!

Ship and Rail loading & Unloading + Analogous to truck loading and unloading

Transfers Between Modes i- Time required (peak and off-peak) 3 IIrayqzc distance in niiles

58 IX. PARTICIPANTS

The New York City Transit Authority, operates one of the largest subway systems in the world, 714 miles of trotk with 6,000 cars stopping at 469 stations, carrying 3.3 million passengers each day. Mr. LeKoi Armstead Mr. John Bennett Sr. ‘I’rms. An;dyst Long Islmd R;droad NY’S Dot-Region 8 .j;iniaica Station 4 hrnctt l3lvcl. Jamaica, NY I 1435 Poughkc-cpsic, N\’ 1260.3 Mr. William Bent Mr. I&hard Backus (:.‘l:l?s. Managctnent Intern 10 I?irk Plaza Intcrstatc ‘I‘~tas~7ort~~tit,n I. Nl’ I/.2.32 I3oston. YvLi 02 1 16

Mr. Jack Barthwell III Ms. Iris Berman <:onsoliclatcd li;d (h-p. Staff ~I‘ransportation l%nner Slate & 1.~~21Aff;tirs limrstate ‘I’r;unspottation la) 2. Has 1 I5 Port Authority of Nj’ X YJ Selkirk. NY’ I.2 15X 1 World ‘I’radc (hitcr - Ml! New \.ork. NY 10048

Mr. Paul Bialy NYC: ‘I’r;lnsit Authorit!. x5-42 OH1 h hv~nuc Keg0 M-k. Nj’ I 1.574

Ms. Evangeline Binder Vice Prmiclent Nj~ ~handxr of‘<;onimercc One Ihttery b-k Plaza New York. NY 1000-i

Ms. Maryellen Bennett Mr. Joseph Birgeles Supm~ising I’hnncr Port Ihq-mtment lnterstatc ‘I’r;lnsI-“)rtation Port Aiitliorit). of NY 84 NJ Port Authorit!, of TV\’ & NJ I World Trade (hitcr - 3-h 1 Wix-lcl Traclc (Lmtcr 041: New Xrixk. N\’ 1004X NW l’ork. N\r. IO043 Mr. Hermann Botzow Mr. Hal Brown Regional Transportation Manager Division Administrator Interstate Transportation Federal Highway Administration Port Authority of NY & NJ 1 Clinton Avenue 1 World Trade Center - 64E Leo O’Brien Federal New York, NY 10048 Office Building, Room 911 Albany, NY 12207 Mr. Christopher Boylan New York MTA Ms. Gail Browning 347 Madison Avenue Director of Agency Service New York. NY 100 17 Div. of Minority Sr Women’s Business Development Mr. Thomas Bradshaw One Commerce Plaza Managing Director Ahny, New York 12245 The First Boston Corp. Park Avenue Phzd Mr. Araceli Bueno New York, NY 10055 MTMCTEA 720 Thimble Shoals Blvd. Mr. John Brady Suite 130 Goods Movement Manager Newport News, VA 23606 Interstate Transportation Port Authority of NY Sr NJ Mr. Richard Burnfield 1 World Trade Center - 64E Southeastern Penn. Transp. New York, NY 10048 Authority (SEPTA) 714 Market St, 3rd Floor Mr. Richard Brail Philadelphia, PA 19 106 Rutgers University Box 270 Ms. Aileen Bush New Brunswick, NJ 08903 Staff Economist Interstate Trdnsportation Mr. Leonard Braun Port Authority of NY & NJ Managing Director 1 World Trade Center - 64E Marcus Group, Inc. New York, NY 10048 370 Lexington Avenue, Room 1205 New York, NY 10017 Mr. Nacy Butler Daniel1 Mann Mr. Steven Brengel Johnson & MendenhaII Long Island Railroad 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Planning Department Washington, DC 20036 90-27 Sutphin Blvd. Jamaica, NY 11435 Mr. Donald Calvin II Legislative Consultant Mr. Stanley Brezenoff 30 S. ocean Avenue Executive Director Freeport, NY 11520 Port Authority of NY Mt NJ 1 World Trade Center - 67W New York, NY 10048 Mr. George Cancro Mr. Alex Chavrid Project Matxtgct-. l-km-y Progrcratm Fderal Railro:td Aclmin Port Authorit?~ of NY & NJ Routing No. RDV-2 1 1 World ‘l’rxk (.cnter - 64S 400 ‘tli Street, SW ,Necv Ji)r-k. ‘VI’ 10048 Wa,sliitigtoti, IX; 20500

Mr. David Cardwell Mr. Paul Ciannavei ,\ttornq~ Rc~bie Association l-Iollancl & Ktiighr t I I W. Putnam Avenue PO. h,x 15.x> Suite 11 1 Orl;tntlo, FL rSB0.Z (;rcetiwich. (:‘I’ 06830

Mr. Bruce Clarke Asst. ‘l’ratlsp. 1’1311.Eng. \‘irgitiia DO’I I-401 t:ast Hrcxtrl Street Riclitiiotitl, Ki 2.52 I9

Mr. James Car-man Marititntr ~~dt7tttlisrr:trioti 400 ‘111 Slrc’ct. S\\’ Routing S!,mtwt .tl.U-X.3, W’;tdiitig:tc )t I I )( 1 3 1500 Mr. Bernard Cohen IXrcctor of’ I’iatlning & Polic) I\lctrcqx~litati ‘1’r;insportation Aurhorit) .h’ Xktclison A\xmue New li)Ik s\r. 10017

Mr. Hruce Connor f’icc Prcsiclent Ecl~wtl5 & klce~~, Inc. 70 Soutl1 orange Avenue Li~~ingstou, NJ (F’O39 Mr. Phil Connors Mr. Ben DeCosta President Port Authority of NY & NJ Universal Maritime Service Aviation Dept. 10 Exchange Place 1 World Trade Center - 64N Jersey City, NJ 07302 New York, NY 10048

Mr. Matt Coogan Mr. Aitcheson Degrau Consultant Program Analysis 1 Financial Center, 29th Floor Federal Aviation Admin. Boston, MA 02 11 l-2659 JFK Airport, FAA, Bldg. 111 Jamaica, NY 11430 Mr. Dennison Cottrell Attn: AEA 600 NYS Dept. of Transportation 1220 Washington Avenue Mr. Robert Della Vedova Campus 305-7A Asst. Vice President Albany, NY 12232 Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade Sr Douglas Mr. James Cunningham 1 Penn Plaza PIL Transportation Ser. New York, NY 10 119 555 North Lane Suite 6300 Mr. Charles DelPriore Conshocken, PA 19428 Director Westchester Trans. Mgt. Org. Mr. Russell Davenport 235 Mamaroneck Avenue Town of Barnstable White Plains, NY 10605 DPW Engineering 367 Main Street Mr. Peter Denitz Hyannis, b&l 02601 Parsons Brinckerhoff One Penn Plaza Mr. Hal Davidow New York, NY 10119 Southeastern Penn. Transportation Authority Mr. Vincent Diarchangel 84 1 Chestnut Vice Pres/NY CyrNJ Philadelphia, PA 19 107 Intl. Longshoremen Association 235 Clifford Street Mr. Brian Day Newark, NJ 070 15 Transportation Policy Manager Massachusetts Port Authority Ms. Susan DiMaio 10 Park PbdZi Liberty Lines Express Boston, MA 02116 10 I Nepperhan Avenue PO. Box 624 Mr. Robert Dean Yonkers, NY 10703 Amtech Corp. 17304 Preston Road Bldg. E-100 Dallas, TX 75252

63 Mr. Hank Ditttnar Mr. Walter Ernst Director hmtc1k Surf;icc ‘1’1-ansl”)rtatit,n liailroacl Mailbox H8 Policy Project SO0 7th Awnw 1300 16th Sttwt Pain Station Washington. I><: LOO.30 New York, NY 10001

Mr. Mortimer Downey Mr. Oscar Evangelista Deput). Secretary of ‘Iiansp. C;oodkind X O’Dea, Inc. 11.5. l)ept. of ‘I’ransp(,rtation 250 Park Avenue South 400 7tli Street. SW New York, NY 10003 Washington, I)<: 20590 Mr. David Ewing Mr. Thomas Downs Mgr., Metro. Planning C;ommissioncr American ‘Trucking Assoc. NJ Dept. of Transportation 2200 Alill Koad iO35 Parkway A\.cnue Ale-xandria, VA 22314 ‘I’renton.NJ 08625 Mr. William Fahey Mr. Peter Dunlop Liberty Lines Vice President PO. Box 624-475 Stone 3t: Webster Transp. Saw Mill Kiver Koad Three Executive Campus Yonkers, NY 10703 Chqry Hill. NJ OSO.% Ms. Felice Farber Mr. Larry Dwyer Director of Legislative Programs Feded Highway Administration NYCINT 820 First Street, N.E. .-i0 Worth Street Washington. IX: 20002 New York, NY 10013 Attn: Pat Knight Mr. Eugene Fasullo Mr. John E. Egan Engineering Dept. Commissioner Port Authority of NY Sr NJ NE’ State Dept. of Transp. 1 World Trade Center - 72s State Office Rldg. Campus New York, NY 10048 1220 Wbhington Avenue Albany h?’ 12232 Mr. William Fife Manager, Planning Mr. John Englert Aviation Dept. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Port Authority of NY Sr NJ Authorit) 1 World Trade Center - b5E 700 Commercial Avenue New York. NY 10048 Garden City. NY 1 1530 Mr. Larry Filler Mr. Daniel Garvey Executive Director Vice President TransitCenter Frederic R. Harris, Inc. Port Authority of NY & NJ 300 East 42nd Street 1 World Trade Center-Rm. 2573 New York, NY 10017 New York, NY 10048 Ms. Marilyn Gay Mr. Gene Fong Howard Stein-Hudson Federal Highway Admin. 10 East 21st Street Leo O’Brian Federal Bldg. New York, NY 10010 9th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Mr. Stanley Gee Planning and Research Manager Mr. David Forte Federal Highway Administration Associate Planner Leo O’Brian Federal Building Westchester Co. DOT 9th Floor 112 E. Post Road Albany, NY 12207 White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Aklo Genovesi Mr. Ben Freedman NJ Dept. of Transportation Vice President 1035 Parkway Avenue NY Cross Harbor Railroad CN609 PO. Box 182 Trenton, NJ 08625 Brooklyn, NY 11232 Mr. Paul Gessner Mr. Thomas Freeman Sr. Transportation Planner General Manager Interstate Transportation Chemung County Transit Port Authority of NY & NJ 1201 Clemens Center Parkway 1 World Trade Center - 64E EImira, NY 14901 New York, NY 10048

Mr. Jerry Fritz Ms. Lisa Gion Dept. of Transportation Federal Highway Admin. Transportation & Safety Leo O’Brian Bldg. 9th Floor Bldg. Room 917 Clifton Avenue & N. Pearl St. Harrisburg, PA 17 120 Albany, NY 12207

Ms. Margarita Gagliardi Ms. Astrid Glynn Associate Exec. Offce/Iiansp. & Constr. STV Group 10 Park Plaza 225 Park Avenue South Room 3 170 New York, NY 10003 Boston, MA 02116 Mr. Bruce Goldman Ms. Stacey Harper Real Estate Director St-.Business Planner Massachusetts Port Authority New Jersey Trdnsit 10 Park Plaza One Penn Plaza East Boston, MA 02 116 Newark, NJ 07105

Mr. Craig Goodall Mr. L.D. Harper Asst. Branch Manager Pres./Gcneral Manager Goodkind & O’Dea. Inc. Malamate Nati Line Inc. 250 Park Avenue South 575 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10003 New York, NY 10023

Mr. John Gross0 Ms. Nancy Harris SEPTA Office of the Secretat-) 714 Market Street 400 7th Street, SW 3rd Floor Routing Symbol-5-832 Philadelphia, PA 19 106 Wdshington, DC 20590

Mr. Ailan Haack Mr. Brian Harti Airport Executive Director Greiner. Inc. Brooklyn IJnion Gas 66 North Village Avenue One Metrotech Center Rockville Centre, NY 11570 Brooklyn. NY 1120 1

Mr. Thomas Hannan Mr. Kenneth Hawk Supervising Planner President/CEO Interstate Transportation Hawk Engineering, PC. Port Authority of NY Sr NJ PO. Box 427 1 World Trade Center - 64E Binghamton. NY 13902 New York, NY 10048 Ms. Sandra Hayes Mr. Frank Harder Deputy Regional Director Intermodal Management Inc. NYS Department of Transportation 1520 Locust Street 47-40 21st Street, 8th Fl. 12th Floor Long Island Cit); NY 11 10 1 Philadelphia, PA 19 102 Ms. Julie Haywood Mr. Douglas Hardy Budget Analysis City of NY Pres. NYSDOT Borough of Queens Box 822 Imprest Fund Rensselaer. NY 12 144 120-55 Queens Blvd., Rm 3 11 Kew Gardens. NY 11424 Mr. David Henley Vice President NYC Economic Dev. Corp. 1 10 William Street New York, NY 10038

66 Mr. Roger Herz Mr. Dane Ismart Executive Director Chief Intermodal Engineer Bicycle Transportation Action Federal Highway Administration 308 East 79th Street 400 Seventh Street, SW (HEP-50) New York, NY 10021 Washington, DC 20590

Mr. Arthur Hill Mr. Thomas Jablonski Federal Highway Admin. NYTCA 820 First Street, NE 370 Jay Street, CPM Dept. Washington, DC 20002 c/o Maureen Gallagher Brooklyn, NY 11201 Mr. Ira Hirschman Principal Economist Mr. Lloyd Jacobs Parsons Brinckerhoff Planner One Penn Plaza Federal Highway Administration New York, NY 10119 25 Scotch Road Trenton, NJ 08628 Mr. Richard Hollis Supv. Planner Mr. Robert James Corm. DOT Port Department 24 Wolcott Hill Road Port Authority of NY & NJ Wethersfield, CT 06109 1 World Trade Center - 34E New York, NY 10048 Ms. Sheri Horn Sr. Editor Northeast Ms. Kim Jin-Wi 424 West 33rd Street Logistics Development Manager New York, NY 1000 1 Sealand Control Bldg. 5080 McLester Street Mr. Michael Horodniceanu Port Elizabeth, NJ 07207 President Urbitran Mr. Michael Jones 71 West 23rd Street Stone and Webster Engineering Corp. New York, NY 10010 One Penn Plaza 250 West 34th Street Ms. Linda Howe New York, NY 10119 Sr. Associate Rutgers University Mr. Tom Jost Box 270 President’s Office New Brunswick, NJ 08903 Staten Island Borough Borough Hall Mr. Michael Huerta Staten Island, NY 10301 Associate Deputy Secretary of Trans portation Mr. Terrance Joyce U.S. Dept. of Transportation Assistant Manager 400 7th Street, SW L.I. Railroad Washington, DC 20590 2 l- 16 Jackson Avenue Long Island, NY 1110 1

67 Mr. Jack Kanarek Ms. Donna Kennon Senior Director Richmond Regional Planning Project Development Planning District Comm. Suite 101 New Jersey Tntnsit 2 104 West Laburom Ave. One Penn Plaza East Richmond, VA 23227 Newark. NJ 07 I OS Mr. Lawrence Kiernan Ms. Paige Kane Federal Aviation Administration Bureau of Freight, 800 Independence Avenue, SW Ports & Waterways Routing Symbol -APP-400 Room 2 16 T & S Bldg. Washington DC 2059 1 Harrisburg, PA 17 120 Mr. Michael Koontz Mr. Gerald Kane Transportation Planner Southeastern Penn. Fedem Highway Administration Trdnsportation Authority 711 West 40th Street 841 Chestnut Baltimore, MD 2 12 11 Philadelphia, PA 19 107 Mr. Daniel IaCombe Mr. Richard Kassel Program Analyst Sr. Project Attorney Delaware DOT Natural Res. Defense Council 7 15 King Street New York. NY 10011 Wilmington, DE 19801

Ms. Barbara Katz Mr. Floyd Lapp Chief Dev. Officer Director, Transportation Div. New Dowling College Nat. Center York City Department of City Planning 1 Ole Hour Blvd. 2 Lafayette Street, Room 1200 Oakddle, NY 1 1769 New York, NY 10007-l 2 16

Mr. Richard R. Kelly Mr. James Larsen Director Air Cargo Bus. Dev. Manager Interstate Transportation Aviation IkpaITIIKnt Port Authoriq of NY Sr NJ Port Authority of NY Sr NJ 1 World Trade Center 64s 1 World Trade Center - 64N New York, NY 10048 New York. NY 10048

Mr. Michael Kennedy Ms. Andrea Latoff Principal Engineer Management Intern Edwards & Kelcey Engineers InterState Transportation 90 West Street Port Authority of NY & NJ New York. NY 10006 1 World Trade Center - 64E New York, NY 10048

68 Mr. Arthur Lawson Ms. Ann Lobello Administrator AssOCiate Transportation Planner Dept. of Public Works Interstate Transportation 2000 14th Street, NW Port Authority of NY & NJ Washington, DC 20009 1 World Trade Center - 64E New York. NY 10048 Mr. Richard Lee Transportation Planner Mr. Neil Longfield Connecticut Dept. of Transp. NJDOT 24 Wolcott Hill Road 1035 Parkway Avenue Weathersfield, CT 06109 CN609 Trenton, NJ 08625 Mr. John Lemmerman NYS Dept. of Transportation Mr. Donald Lotz 1220 Washington Avenue Intermodal Dev. Manager Campus 305-7A Port Authority of NY & NJ Albany, NY 12232 1 World Trade Center - 34E New York. NY 10048 Mr. David Letteney Steamship Operating Mr. Jerry Lutin Intermodal Committee Senior Director 806 PI. Two, Harborside Fin. Newark-Elizabeth Rail Div. Jersey City, NJ 07311 New Jersey Transit One Penn PhZd Ms. Lillian Liburdi Newark, NJ 07 105-2246 Director Port Department Mr. Richard Malchow Port Authority of NY & NJ Manager, Planning and Programs 1 World Trade Center - 34s New York State Dept. of Transportation New York, NY 10048 4740 2 1st Street 9th Floor Long Island City: NY 11101 Mr. Donald Liloia Interstate Transportation Mr. Rick Maldonado Port Authority of NY & NJ Interstate Transportation 1 World Trade Center - 64s Port Authority of NY & NJ New York, NY 10048 1 World Trade Center - 64E New York, NY 10048 Mr. Errol Lim President/CEO Mr. William Mangels Baker Engineering NY, Inc. Planner 400 Executive Blvd. Maryland DOT Elmsford, NY 10523 PO. Box 8755 BWI Airport, MD 2 1240 Mr. John Livingston Sr. Vice President LCOR Inc. 245 Park Avenue New York. NY 10167

69 Mr. Mike Mangione Ms. Francis McArdle Engineer Managing Director Stone Sr Webster Engineering General Contractors Assoc. 1 Penn Plaza 60 East 42nd Street 250 W. 34th Street New York, NY 10165 New York, INY 10119 Ms. Joan McDonald Mr. Edwards Marks Director Progressive Transp. Metro North Commuter Railroad of Duchess, Inc. 347 Madison Avenue 14 Commerce Street New York, NY 10017 Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Ms. Linda McDonald Mr. Michael Marsico Proj. Dev./NE Region Coordinator, Project Development Ebasco Services Incorp. Interstate Transportation Two World Trade Center Port Authority of NY & NJ New York. NY 10048 1 World Trade Center - 64E New York, NY 10048 Mr. Philip McGrade Chief, NYCTA Mr. Hector Martinez 370 Jay Street Transp. Contr. Officer Brooklyn, NY 11201 U.S. Postal Service 421 8th Avenue, Room 459 Ms. Janet Merola New York, NY 10199 Metropolitan Transit Auth. 347 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor Mr. Robert Martins New York, NY 10017 Chief, Regulatory Affairs Federal Railroad Mr. Michael Meyer, Ph.D. Administration RRP-32 Georgia Institute of US Dept. of Transportation Technology 400 7th Street, SW School of Civil Engineers Washington, DC 20590 790 Atlanta Drive Athta, GA 30332-D355 Mr. Nick Massand President Mr. Gerald Miller Massand PC. Metro Washington Council 2 1 l-l 2 Union Turnpike of Govts. Bayside, NY 11364 777 North Capitol, NE Washington, DC 20002 Mr. Theodore Matthews Director of Freight Services Mr. Gerald Moen NJ Dept. of Transportation Liberty Lines Express 1035 Parkway Avenue 10 1 Nepperhan Avenue Trenton, NJ 08625 PO. Box 624 Yonkers, NY 10703 Mr. Alvin Morgan Mr. Charles Nemmers Transportation Analyst Division Administrator NYS DOT Federal Highway Admin. 1220 Washington Avenue 25 Scotch Road, 2nd Floor Albany, NY 12232 Trenton, NJ 08628

Ms. Carolyn Morgenstern Mr. John Newman Editor/ Legis. Asst. Asst. to the President NYS Movers & Warehousemen’s Konski Engineers 132 State Street 26 Ashley Drive Albany, NY 12207 Balston Lake, NY 12019

Mr. Gerhardt Muller Mr. Edward O’Sullivan Supervising Planner Airport Access Planning Manager Interstate Transportation Port Authority of NY & NJ Port Authority of NY & NJ 1 World Trade Center - 65s 1 World Trade Center - 64E New York, NY 10048 New York, NY 10048 Mr. Ted Olcott Mr. Mark Muriello Principal Port Department New Jersey AlIiance for Action Port Authority of NY & NJ 28 Badeau Avenue 1 World Trade Center - 34E Summit, NJ 70901 New York, NY 10048 Mr. Robert Olmsted Ms. Mary K. Murphy Transp. Consultant Manager, Policy & 33-04 91st Street Intergovernmental Liaison Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Port Authority of NY Sr NJ 1 World Trade Center, Room 64E Mr. Robert Owens New York, NY 10048 Federal Transit Admin. 400 7th Street, SW Mr. Dan Muscatello Routing Symbol -TBP-10 Air Cargo Program Manager Washington, DC 20590 Aviation Department Port Authority of NY & NJ Dr. Robert E. Paaswell 1 World Trade Center - 64N Director New York, NY 10048 University Transportation Research Center, Region II Mr. Peter Nelson City College, Room Y220 DOT/FAA/AEA-17 New York, NY 10031 Bldg. No. 111 JFK Airport Ms. Efi Pagitsas Jamaica, NY 11439 C.TI?S. 10 Park Plaza Room 2150 Boston, MA 02116 Mr. Umesh Pallanayak Mr. Henry Peyrebrune Engineer Specialist Assistant Commissioner Delaware Dept. of Transp. New York State Department of PO. Box -8/ / Transportation Dover. DE 19903 State Campus 1220 Washington Avenue Mr. Dave Palmer Albany, NY 12232 Vice President Parsons Brinckerhoff Ms. Mary Phillips 250 West 34th Street NJDOT New York, NY 10119 75 Velina Drive Albany, NY 12203 Ms. Joann Papageorgis Interstate Transportation Mr. Dave Phraner Port Authority of NY & NJ Program Manager one PATH PkdZii, b. 104 Interstate Transportation Jersey City, NJ 07306 Port Authority of NY & NJ 1 World Trade Center - 64E Mr. Chris Patton New York, NY 10048 Lead Engineer Parsons Brinckerhoff Mr. David Plavin 830 Bear Tavern Road Director West Trenton, NJ 08628 Aviation Department Port Authority of NY 8r NJ Mr. Manomar Patwardhan 1 World Trade Center - 65W Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (America) New York, NY 10048 Harborside Financial Ctr. Plaza III, Suite 601 Mr. John Powers Jersey City. NJ 073 11 New Jersey Dept. of Transportation Dr. Judy Perkins 1035 Parkway Avenue Southern Ilniversity 3rd Floor, MOB Civil Engineer Dept. Trenton, NJ 08625 PO. Box 9969 Baton Rouge, LA 708 13 Mr. David Putz NYSDOT Mr. Louis Pettine State Office Bldg. Campus Administrator Bldg. 4, Room 115, Southeastern Reg. Trans. Auth. 1220 Washington Avenue 25 North 6th Street Albany, NY 12232 New Bedford. MA 62740 Ms. Laurel Radow Sr. Policy Analyst American Public Transit Assn. 120 1 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005

72 Mr. Pat Ragan Mr. Ivan Rios Frederic R. Harris, Inc. Transportation Planner 300 East 42nd Street Interstate Transportation New York, NY 10017 Port Authority of NY & NJ 1 World Trade Center - 64E Mr. Stephen Rapley New York, NY 10048 Federal Highway Admin. Region 3, Suite 4000 Ms. Marilyn Rittenour 10 South Howard Street Quebec Government House Baltimore. MD 21201 630 Fifth Avenue Suite 360 Mr. William Rappel New York. NY 10111 Research Assistant Institute of Public Admin. Mr. Richard Roberts 55 West 44th Street Chief, Transportation Planning New York, NY 10036 & Policy Interstate Transportation Ms. Donna Reed Port Authority of NY Sr NJ Senior Transportation Planner 1 World Trade Center - 64E Interstate Transportation New York, NY 10048 Port Authority of NY & NJ 1 World Trade Center - 64E Mr. Martin Robins New York, NY 10048 Director NJ Transit Hudson River Mr. Richard Reintsema Waterfront Transportation Off. NYSDOT (Corm-n. Transp. Div.) 2 Journal Square Plaza-8th Fl. 307/7A State Campus Jersey City, NJ 07306 1220 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12232 Honorable Robert A. Roe Robert A. Roe, Inc. Mr. Lucius J. Riccio, Ph.D. I? 0. Box 407 Commissioner 1680 Route 23 NYCDOT Wayne, NJ 07470 40 Worth Street New York, NY 10013 Mr. Peter Rolih George G. Sharp, Inc. Mr. Anthony Riccio, V.P. 100 Church Street Harlem River Yard New York, NY 10007 Ventures, Inc. 110 E. 59th Street, 20th FL Mr. Francis Ronnenberg New York, NY 10022 Executive Director Westchester Trans. Mgt. Org. Mr. Frans Riemsdyk 235 Mamaroneck Avenue VI? Sales White Plains, NY 10605 Maher Terminals, Inc. Journal Square Plaza Jersey City, NJ 07306 Mr. Raymond Ruggieri Mr. Steven Seymour Director, New York Town of Barnstable Metropolitan Tt-dnsportation DPW Engineering Coordinating Council 367 Main Street 1 World Trade Center, Room 82E Hyannis. MA 0260 1 New York, NY 10048 Mr. Donald Shanis Ms. Janette Sadik-Khan Associate Director NYC Mayor’s Trdnsp. Office Delaware Valley Reg. Plan. 52 Chambers Street The Bourse Bldg. Room 203 21 South 5th Street New York. NY 10007 Philadelphia, PA 19 106

Mr. David Sampson Mr. Anthony Shorris Associate Principal Deputy Executive Director Urbitran Port Authority of NY Sr NJ 71 West 23rd Street 1 World Trdde Center - 67W New York, NY 10010 New York. NY 10048

Mr. William Sanders Mr. Robert Sienkiewicz Director Maritime Admin. Mass Transit Operators of NY 400 7th Street, SW 124- 15 28th Avenue Washington, DC 20590 Flushing, NY 11354 Mr. Ron Signorino Ms. Rosemary Scanlon Dir/Reg. Affairs Asst. Deputy State lJniversa1 Maritime Service Comptroller 10 Exchange Place Office of the State Deputy Jersey City, NJ 07302 Comptroller for the City of New York Mr. Cliff Sobel 270 Broadway, Room 2208 Deputy Director New York. NY 10007 North Jersey Transportation Coordinating Council Mr. Robert Schumacher 153 Halsey Street, 7th Floor Transit Consultant PO. Box 47022 311 Packman Avenue Newark, NJ 07101 1Mt.Vernon, NY 10552 Mr. Gerard Soffian Mr. Mike Scott Assistant Commissioner General Superintendent Division of Traffic Planning Port Authority Trans-Hudson New York City Department of Port Authority of NY Sr NJ Transportation 1 Path Plaza 40 Worth Street Jersey City, NJ 07306 New York, NY 10013 Mr. Kevin Sondrup Mr. Bruce Stutz Automotive Systems Editor United Parcel Service National Audubon Society, Inc. Office #RO3B-O43 700 Broadway 340 MacArthur Blvd. New York, NY 10003 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Mr. Parvesh Swani Mr. Anthony Spera Vice President & General Manager Supv. Comm. Relations Long Island Railroad Federal Aviation Admin. Jamaica Station JFK Airport, FAA, Bldg. 111 Jamaica, NY 11435 Jamaica, NY 11430 Attn: AEA 600 Ms. Catherine Sweeney Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Mr. Peter Star@ Authority Chairman 10 Columbus Circle, 18th Floor New York Metropolitan New York, NY 10019 Transportation Authority 347 Madison Avenue Mr. Peter Szabo New York, NY 10017 Executive Assistant Conn. Dept. of Transportation Mr. Mark Stanisci 24 Wolcott HiII Road President Wethetield, CT 06109 TNT Hydrolines 2 1st Avenue Mr. Ron Taste Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716 Staff Transportation Planner Interstate Transportation Mr. Vito Stortelli Port Authority of NY & NJ Niagara Frontier Trans. 1 World Trade Center - 64E Authority New York, NY 10048 181 Ellicott Street Buffalo, NY 14203 Mr. Benny Thompson Principal Ms. Ann Strauss-Wieder Ben Thompson Associates Supv. Transportation Planner 137 Fifth Avenue Port Authority of NY & NJ New York, NY 10010 1 World Trade Center - 54s New York. NY 10048 Ms. Letitia Thompson Regional Administrator Ms. Susan Streisand Federal Transit Administration 18 Beacon Hill Dr. 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2940 East Brunswick, NJ 08816 New York, NY 100

Mr. Sheldon Strickland 25 12 W Meredith Dr. Vienna, VA 22181 Mr. Alfred Tifone Mr. Ellis Vieser E-Z Hider Prognlm President Building 14 1, Room 240 NJ Alliance for Action JFK Int’l Airport 28 Badeau Avenue Jamaica, ,NY 114 30 LSummit, NI_ 70901’

Mr. Raymond Tillman Mr. Max Vigil Sr. Vice President Director. Program Development URS Consultants Inc. Federal Transit Administration One Penn Plaza 55 Broadway, Kendall Square New York, NY 101 19 Cambridge. MA 02 142

Mr. Richard Trembley Mr. Paul Violette Assistant Professor Executive IXrector 1J.S. IMcrcliant ,Marine Academ) Maine Turnpike Authority Steamboat Road 4.30 Riverside Street Kings Point. N1’ 1 1024 Portland. Maine 04 10j

Mr. James Tripp Mr. David Waldinger Environmental Defense Fund EEJ 257 Park Avenue South -41 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10010 Suite 1015 New York, N\i 10017 Mr. Mike Urtonowski Stone S; Webster Mr. Rich Walker Engineering C:orp. I:SDOT (Maritime) 1 Penn Pl;l%;l Mar-830. Room 7201 250 W. 34th Street 400 7th Street, SW New York. NY 101 I9 Washington, DC 20590

Mr. John Valengavich Mr. Christopher Ward Transportation Planner NYC Economic Dev. Corp. Corm. Dept. of ‘I‘rdnsportatiori 1 10 William Street 24 Wollcott Hill Koad NUV York, NY 100 j8 WeathersGicid.

76 Mr. Jeffrey Weiss Ms. Kristina Younger Professor Sr. Planner SUNY Maritime College Capital District Transp. Comm Fort Schuyler 5 Computer Drive West Bronx, NY 10465 Albany, NY 12205

Mr. Michael Wethereu Ms. Patricia Zedalis Bobardier Corp. Deputy Commissioner 1225 Franklin Avenue Corm. Dept. of Transp. Garden City, LI, NY PO. Box A Wetherfield, CT 061299801 Mr. William Wheeler Transit Planning Director Mr. Erwin Zimmerman Metropolitan Transportation TRANSACT Authority 20 Thorndale Circle 347 Madison Avenue Darien. CT 06820 New York, NY 10017 Mr. Jeff Zupan Mr. David Widawsky Senior Fellow Head/Transit Plan. Regional Plan Association Ebasco Infrastructure 1211 Avenue of the Americas Two World Trade Center 9th Floor New York, NY 10048 New York, NY 10036

Mr. Donald Wiss Sr. Vice President Edwards & Kelcey, Inc. 70 South Orange Avenue Livingston, NJ 07039

Ms. Cathy Woods Transit Analyst Chemung County Transit 120 1 Clemens Center Parkway Elmira, NY 14901

Mr. Lawrence Yermack Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority 10 Columbus Circle, 26th Floor New York, NY 10019

Mr. Lee Young AmerCom Corporation 83 N. Beverwyck Road Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034 X. APPENDIX

The George Woshington Bridge, a mojor intermodoi link in the region’s highway network, tarried 3.6 million trucks in 1992.

The USDOT Intermodal Workshop If you have any questions regarding held in New York City was coordinated this report please contact: by The Port Authority of New York and Mr. Dane Ismart New Jersey. Rick Maldonado, Inter- Intermodal Branch state Transportation Department, Port Federal Highway Administration Authority of NY and NJ, was the Coor- HEP-50 dinator of the New York City program 400 Seventh Street S.W. and was also responsible for drafting Washington D.C. 20590 these proceedings on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration. Phone Number (202) 3664071

78