TRANSPORTATION J O U R N A L

Beyond “Living Behind the
Geraniums:” Enhancing Mobility
to Create Livable Communities
for Successful Aging By Robert Hodder, Ph.D. Pennsylvania’s “Key” to
Successful High Speed Rail By Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Ph.D. Quality Communities Workshop:
Advancing the Transportation —
Land Use Connection By Clifford A. Thomas Is Stewart Ready to be the
Fourth New York Airport? By Doreen Frasca The Next Big Thing in Atlanta By Liz Drake Learning from Other Regions:
The Importance of Best Practices By Joel Ettinger, Gerry Bogacz, Alan Borenstein, and
Kuo-Ann Chiao Letter from the Editors Another summer is behind us and some
of us are probably already beginning
to prepare for winter. How apropos
that both the upcoming Rudin Center
Conference and our first article
are about a major issue that people
face in the winter of their lives —
mobility. Robert Hodder of AARP talks
about the increasing driving and public
transportation challenges that seniors
face as they get older, also discussing
how transit-friendly development
(livable communities) is also senior-
friendly development. Recognizing that the link between
land-use and transportation invest-
ments is one of the key components
of building a quality community,
the New York State Department of Ya know that old trees just grow stronger
And old rivers grow wilder ev’ry day,
Old people just grow lonesome
Waiting for someone to say “Hello in there, Hello.” So if you’re walking down the street sometime
And spot some hollow ancient eyes,
Please don’t just pass ‘em by and stare
As if you didn’t care, say “Hello in there, Hello.” —Hello in There, John Prine Prine’s description of “hollow ancient eyes”
scares us all. And yet we are gratified when
he urges us to reach out and say “hello in
there.” We know that it is the right thing to
do, and yet our frustration is that there must
be more. In fact, there is much more that can be done,
especially in transportation. Even as those
who deal with the older adult community
work to transform this stereotype of aging —
persons “living behind the geraniums,” isolat-
ed and viewing the world rather than engag-
ing with it — the transportation community
can help with improved public policies, bet-
ter planning, and a more astute approach to
the community building process. In short, we
can work to enhance community design so
that places become more “livable” and peo-
ple stay socially active. Indeed, AARP
believes the imperative to create environ-
ments for successful aging is a principal
design challenge of the 21 st Century. We all need to move between the places
where we live and the places that we work,
shop, and play. Transportation planners think
about these locations as “origins” and “desti-
nations,” and they routinely examine the
demand for trips and seek to build and main-
tain transportation facilities that will accom- modate the projected demand. Historically
that network capacity-building has been cen-
tered on roads, reflecting Americans’ alle-
giance to the automobile and their political
support for federal, state, and local policies
that have created metropolitan regions domi-
nated by auto-dependent suburbs. 1 As a consequence, Americans spend more time
“stuck in traffic” than ever before. 2 In the early 1990s federal transportation policies such as
the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) began to marginally shift
federal funding to alternative modes (e.g., rail
and bus transit); that movement toward “mul-
timodalism” has continued and been refined to
include other modes of travel such as biking
and walking. Nevertheless, we remain a pre-
dominantly auto-dependent society, and it is
exactly that overdependence on a single mode
that threatens our autonomy and independence
as we age rapidly. Communities throughout the United States are
already grappling with changing regional demo-
graphics. Policymakers and community resi-
dents alike are recognizing that design changes
will be required to enhance opportunities for
economic activity and social engagement as
residents seek to “age in place.” Obviously
more than physical design is needed to con-
front the challenges associated with an aging
population, but community design establishes
the parameters that guide both public and pri-
vate actions. Changing Demographics and the Significance
of Mobility in Community Engagement The demographics of the United States will
change dramatically over the next several
decades, in large part due to the aging of the (Continued on page 7) N E W Y O R K TRANSPORTATION J O U R N A L wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter Volume X No. 1 Fall 2006 1 Inside NYTJ B EYOND “L IVING B EHIND THE G ERANIUMS :” E NHANCING M OBILITY TO C REATE L IVABLE C OMMUNITIES FOR S UCCESSFUL A GING (Continued on page 2) B Y R O B E RT H O D D E R , P H . D . “Baby Boomers” — those individuals born
between 1946 and 1964. These roughly 78 million
people will start turning 65 in 2011, and the
ranks of the 65+ population will increase by over
100% between 2000 (35 million) and 2030 (71 mil-
lion). Importantly, there will be similar changes
in the 50+ population. The roughly 87 million
individuals who were 50+ in 2005 are projected
to increase to over 155 million in 2050. While
there are variations in the geography of aging
throughout the country, census figures show that
in the 1990s all but 11 of 318 metropolitan areas
saw an increase in their 65+ population. The policy consequences of this shift are evident
when one pairs the travel choices of most
Americans with the dominant auto-dependent
landscape. For most Americans age 50 and older,
transportation means driving themselves. Nine
out of 10 trips made by individuals 50 and older
are made in a privately owned automobile.
Although that figure is reduced somewhat in
terms of individuals age 75+ who drive them-
selves in private vehicles, the modal preference
of those persons remains the automobile,
although there are marginal increases in walking
and other modes. (Figure 1) This dependence on the private automobile is
troubling for the future independence of many
Americans. As individuals age they confront
increasing limitations to their physical skills.
Declining health, eyesight, physical or mental abil-
ities, in conjunction with the cost considerations
of car ownership and concerns over safety, suggest
that a large number of persons will confront sig-
nificant limitations to their independence once
they are faced with “giving up the keys.” 3 Additionally, states are looking closely at driver
licensing requirements for older drivers. 4 While AARP does not support age-based testing for L IVING B EHIND THE G ERANIUMS CONT . licensing renewal, it does support uniform functional assessments that screen
drivers for their
abilities regardless of age, or medical screening and assessment if indicated by
an individual’s history. Nevertheless, AARP recognizes that there is a life cycle
to driving. It is, thus, all the more imperative that mobility options be available
to persons who no longer drive. Today more than one in five (21%) of Americans
age 65 and older do not drive, and that number is expected to increase. 5 The average male will outlive his driving abilities by six years and the average
female will outlive hers by ten years. In 2005, AARP conducted a survey that looked at the connections between mobil-
ity options and community engagement. Looking at the differences between
drivers and nondrivers, the survey asked respondents to quantify how often they
“missed doing something that they wanted to do” in their community. The results
indicate that drivers frequently missed these activities only 2% of the time; in
contrast, nondrivers missed such activities 33% of the time. (Figure 2) This analysis suggests a strong correlation between driving abilities and
opportunities to have a satisfying life outside of the home. Indeed, looking
at trip purpose, the survey research demonstrated that nondrivers who are 50+
make fewer trips for all purposes except medical and dental when compared
with drivers. (Figure 3, on page 13) Further, AARP research demonstrates that people overwhelmingly want to live in
their own homes and communities as they age. Most, in fact, do so. But many oth-
ers confront transportation barriers that take the choice away from them or make
it difficult or impossible to remain independent and involved in their community. 6 The New York Transportation Journal is published by the NYU Wagner Rudin Center for
Transportation Policy & Management in conjunction with the Rudin Center’s Adivsory board,
the Council on Transportation. The Rudin Center gratefully acknowledges the foundation, corporate, and individual sponsors
that make possible our efforts to promote progressive transportation policy, including the
New York Transportation Journal. The views expressed in the New York Transportation Journal are those of the authors and not
necessarily those of New York University, the Rudin Center, or any of its affiliated organizations
and funders. Letters to the Editor and other inquiries may be addressed to Allison C. de Cerreño at: Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management
NYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
295 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10012
phone: (212) 998-7545; fax: (212) 995-4611
Email: rudin.center@nyu.edu
website: wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter 2 N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL New York Transportation Journal Elliot G. Sander, Publisher Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Editor Brian P. Sterman, Editor Editorial Board John Falcocchio Janette Sadik-Khan José Holguín-Veras Bruce Schaller Robert Paaswell Sam Schwartz Henry Peyrebrune Roy Sparrow Gene Russianoff Robert Yaro Design, Layout, & Editorial Assistance My Linh H. Nguyen-Novotny (Cont. from page 1) Figure 1: Most Age 50+ Drive, Decrease Post 75 Source: National Household Travel Survey, 2001 Enhancing the Travel Environment and
Diversifying Transportation Options So, how do we enhance the travel environ-
ment and diversity transportation options to
allow for greater access to transportation and
a resulting better quality of life? Driving. One method to facilitate continued
independence for persons as they age is to
enhance the travel environment to accommo-
date older drivers. Expanding shoulders,
increasing the fonts on road signage, and
widening road-striping are all suggested tech-
niques for accomplishing this goal. 7 Alternatively, refreshing the driving skills of
older drivers is a method for improving road
safety for all individuals. (AARP has a Driver
Safety Program (DSP) course that has taught
over 10 million individuals since 1979. And
recently the DSP staff released an online ver-
sion of the course to complement the class-
room offering.) Lastly, an examination of the interface
between car and driver may reveal opportu-
nities for safety improvements. In partner-
ship with the American Automobile
Association (AAA), the American
Occupational Therapists Association (AOTA),
and the American Society on Aging (ASA),
AARP initiated a Carfit program in which a
certified occupational therapist examines an
individual in his/her vehicle to see if the “fit”
is correct and if there are any devices or
physical therapies that could enhance the
individual’s driving safety. Nondriving Options. Diversifying mobility
options is an essential element in developing
a sustainable transportation network. Transit
options, whether they be fixed-guideway
(e.g., rail or bus rapid transit) or traditional
fixed-route services, carry many older per-
sons for affordable fares. 8 All public transit providers are required by Federal Law to
charge half of the base fare for certified sen-
iors and those who are disabled during off-
peak travel times. Many providers extend this VOLUME X NO . 1 F ALL 2006 3 N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL discount to peak travel times as well. On the land development side, many commu-
nities are rezoning parcels for more intensive
uses within fixed guideway corridors to take
advantage of the value associated with such
transit investments. In congested regions,
this approach to transit-oriented develop-
ment (TOD) builds upon market demand as
residential, commercial, retail, and public
uses are allowed, which creates enhanced
demand for transit and, thus, yields a more
vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood precinct. 9 Public transportation is often a complex serv-
ice to deliver because agencies are trying to
connect multiple origins and destinations
with limited capital equipment and operating
funds. Because many baby-boomers have
never ridden transit, they often confront dif-
ficulties understanding the service as first-
time customers. Transit properties have
responded to this market opportunity by pro-
viding “travel training,” which instructs new
riders on how to use the bus or train. AARP has
worked with the Transit Authority of River City
in Louisville, Kentucky to develop a video train-
ing module that can be used by transit agencies
without established travel training curricula. Many older adults require specialized trans-
portation services because of physical or
cognitive frailties. Public transportation
agencies are required by Federal Law to pro-
vide lift-equipped, curb-to-curb paratransit
service for persons within 3 / 4 miles of a fixed- route transit service who are physically
unable to make it to the stop. The service
hours have to be consistent with that of the
fixed-route offerings, and the service level is
determined through local planning.
Importantly, providers are limited to charging
twice the standard base fare. The cost of
these trips to the taxpayer is considerable. In
2004, an average of $2.21 was collected for
an unlinked paratransit trip while the cost of
furnishing the service averaged nearly $23. 10 Demand responsive service has expanded rap-
idly nationally, nearly doubling in annual
mileage in the last ten years reported. 11 This is creating an unsustainable cost/revenue model.
The highest level of specialized transit is
taxicab service or volunteer staffed vehicles. (Continued on page 13) AARP’s Strategic Vision AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
membership organization of over
36 million individuals. Guided by
a ten-year strategic plan that
focuses on policy areas where our
actions can have a “social
impact,” AARP national and state
staffs, complemented by a cadre
of engaged volunteers and enthu-
siastic members, work to adopt,
maintain, and enhance programs
that protect economic security
(e.g., Social Security reform),
enhance health and supportive
services (e.g., Medicare, part D),
and provide housing and mobility
options for community residents
(e.g., housing and transportation). While economic security and
health/supportive services advo-
cacy generally centers on federal
and state regulatory and funding
initiatives, livable communities
advocacy in the housing and
transportation arenas is frequent-
ly more local and/or regional in
nature. Such initiatives can be
strongly influenced by federal leg-
islation and funding but much of
the community building process
that affects the character of com-
munity “livability” is shaped by
private market activities, as well
as local land use decisions, trans-
portation programming and fund-
ing, and housing policies and reg-
ulatory requirements. AARP defines a livable communi-
ty as “a place that has affordable
and appropriate housing, sup-
portive community services, and
adequate mobility options, which
together facilitate personal inde-
pendence and engagement of res-
idents in civic and social life.”*
While every community has
a unique history and land use-
transportation pattern, “getting
around” in that landscape is
essential to sustaining life,
engaging in economic activity,
and maintaining the relationships
that define us as social creatures. * A. Kochera and A. Straight, A Report to
the Nation on Livable Communities:
Creating Environments for Successful
Aging (Washington, DC: AARP, 2005). “Because many baby- boomers have never ridden transit, they often confront difficulties understand-
ing the service as first- time customers.” Drivers Nondrivers Frequently 2% 33% Occasionally 6% 17% Rarely 14% 15% Never 78% 35% Figure 2: Nondrivers miss doing something they wanted to do much more often than drivers Robert Hodder, Ph.D., is Manager of Editorial
Content, Integrated Communications, for AARP. R UDIN C ENTER R ESEARCH 4 Many countries have or will soon deploy new high-speed rail
(HSR) (separate right-of-way (ROW) using technologies that
allow speeds over 200 mph) or Maglev (separate ROW using mag-
netic levitation technologies allowing speeds beyond 300 mph).
In the United States, however, though Congress first authorized
studies aimed at deploying HSR in 1965, and despite at least 17
different efforts (some with multiple attempts), over the past 40
years nearly all HSR projects have failed to progress. Further,
the two which do exist — the Empire Corridor (between New York
City and Albany, NY) and Northeast Corridor (NEC) — fall far
short of speeds and performance levels elsewhere. Last year, the Rudin Center completed a study, funded by the
Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI), aimed at identifying key
elements for successful US HSR outcomes. The resulting report,
described in NYTJ (Spring 2005), summarized US HSR legislative
history and developed in-depth case studies for Florida, the
Pacific Northwest, and California. This year, MTI funded the
Center to develop three more cases — the Chicago Hub, the NEC,
and the Keystone Corridor. The following discussion is derived from the Keystone case
which, along with the others is undergoing peer review. As one
of the few cases where HSR has been (or is about to be) imple-
mented in the United States, the Keystone holds important les-
sons for future efforts. Summary History of HSR in the Corridor Legally a branch line of the NEC, the Keystone Corridor was for-
mally designated as a federal HSR corridor by the US Department
of Transportation (USDOT) in December 1998. The initial desig-
nation spanned 104 miles between Philadelphia and Harrisburg,
PA (the eastern portion, owned by Amtrak). An extension of the
designation from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh (the western segment,
owned by Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) was approved in
2000, for a total length of 349 miles. While HSR on the Keystone was briefly explored in the late 1960s, serious efforts began in 1981 when the Commonwealth
established the Pennsylvania High Speed Intercity Rail Passenger
Commission (PHSIRPC). Tasked with “overall responsibility,
power and duty to investigate, study and make recommendations
concerning the need for and establishment and operation of a
high speed intercity rail passenger system in the
Commonwealth”(55 P.S. § 684), the PHSIRPC began its work in
early 1983 with $4.2 million in state, federal and West German
grant funding. Within several months, the PHSIRPC issued a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for a feasibility study and selected Parsons
Brinckerhoff/Gannett Fleming (PBGF) in June 1983. PBGF’s first
report was released in February 1985, presenting various alter-
natives for the full Keystone Corridor, including incremental HSR,
new HSR, and Maglev. Preliminary analysis suggested incremen-
tal HSR offered the highest rate of return and lowest risk.
However, in its Final Report, the PHSIRPC formally recom-
mended Maglev, though a “substantial minority” felt incre-
mental HSR should be pursued. Regardless, the recommendations were “dropped” before th ey
were formally announced. The Final Report was published two
years after Governor Robert P. Casey (D, 1987 – 1995) entered
office and terminated the PHSIRPC staff, halting all HSR work
with no reason publicly stated. In 1995, faced with deteriorating infrastructure but convinced
the corridor was strategically important to the state’s overall
transportation system, the Commonwealth entered into agree-
ment with Amtrak to increase operating assistance on the corri-
dor. In 1999 Amtrak and the Commonwealth signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)/Supplemental MOA, which
outlined objectives and responsibilities under a Keystone
Corridor Improvement Plan (KCIP). A joint $140 million infra-
structure and equipment upgrade program, the KCIP aimed to
reduce trip times from over two hours to 90 minutes by 2004,
enhance several stations, and improve overall reliability of serv-
ice in the corridor. Costs would be shared equally. Work on the KCIP was to begin in 2000, but due to a worsening
financial crisis, Amtrak was unable to meet this deadline.
Meanwhile the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) continued its overall statewide transportation plan-
ning process, looking to develop an integrated multi-modal plan,
dealing with highways, rail, aviation, waterways, freight and
passenger services. In January 2000, PennDOT issued PennPlan
Moves!, a 25-year transportation plan which identified several
statewide goals related to HSR. This was followed, in December
2001, by the Pennsylvania Statewide Passenger Rail Needs
Assessment, which provided a broad evaluation of the need for N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL B Y A L L I S O N L . C . D E C E R R E Ñ O , P H . D . P ENNSYLVANIA ’ S “K EY ” TO S UCCESSFUL H IGH -S PEED R AIL “...despite at least 17 different efforts (some with multiple attempts), over the past 40 years, nearly all HSR projects have failed to progress...” 2006), introduce ninety-minute express serv-
ice, and increase the number of Amtrak trains
from nine to thirteen. 4 The Amendment pro- vided a formal set of production goals and
objectives and additional planned improve-
ments. Specific projects within each of the
program elements were identified, along
with clear timelines for each and expendi-
tures tied to them. With this commitment from the highest levels
of Amtrak and PennDOT, the program began
to move more swiftly, and in December 2004,
based on a financial analysis of planned and
actual expenditures, the funding schedule
was again revised. This time, a number of
expenditures were moved ahead and the
timeline for project completion looked like it
would not only be met, but would likely fin-
ish ahead of schedule for at least some ele-
ments. Completion of the majority of the ele-
ments under the amended project is expect-
ed in fall 2006, at which time electrified
trains will be placed into revenue service.
Speeds will be increased to 110 mph for much
of the line, with corresponding trip times of
90 minutes for express trains and 105 minutes
for local trains between Philadelphia and
Harrisburg, significantly shorter than the two
hours it takes to drive. 5 Elements for Success The initial goal on the Keystone is for modest
110 mph service, but many suggest that once
this service is fully running, there is potential
to increase maximum authorized speeds up to
150 mph in places. While it is too early to
determine whether all the original program
goals will be met, many have been complet-
ed ahead of schedule or will soon be success-
fully addressed. Several factors have clearly
contributed to the Keystone’s recent success
which holds lessons for other HSR initiatives. Leadership, Coupled With the Financial
Means and Authority to Implement Change.
This is perhaps the most important set of fac-
tors contributing to the current success of
this HSR effort. Any one of them alone proved
insufficient to implement HSR. Indeed, part
of what makes the most recent experience 5 statewide intercity passenger rail in key
transportation corridors. The plan prioritized
the corridors, developed a baseline compari-
son across them, developed profiles for those
with high potential, and identified needs and
opportunities, as well as future policy consid-
erations for intercity passenger rail service
within the Commonwealth. 1 The eastern portion of the Keystone was given the highest
rating, with the western portion of the
corridor much lower. Still seeking to enhance service on the corri-
dor, in April 2002 the Commonwealth entered
into a formal Agreement with Amtrak based
on the earlier MOA, but work on the KCIP still
lagged. By September 2003, only one-third of
the funds scheduled had been spent.
According to David Gunn, former CEO and
President of Amtrak, the key reason for this
delay was lack of managerial commitment to
the KCIP on the part of Amtrak. 2 This finally changed when David Gunn
became President and CEO of Amtrak in May
2002. In the early months after joining
Amtrak, Gunn took a trip to Pittsburgh on the
Keystone and determined that improvements
needed to be made immediately. Upon return-
ing, Gunn approached his colleagues at Amtrak
and asked them to work closely with PennDOT
to develop a plan that would improve service
and infrastructure along the corridor, within the
earlier KCIP budget. The Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
and NS were brought into the discussion with
the hope that they would finance several
improvements related to their services. In July 2004, Governor Rendell and Gunn
issued a joint announcement of an amended
$145.5 million plan under which costs would
be split equally between Amtrak and
PennDOT. 3 As with the original KCIP Agreement, the key goals of the project were
to reduce local trip times from two hours to
one hour and forty-five minutes (now by fall N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL VOLUME X NO . 1 F ALL 2006 (Continued on page 12) Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Ph.D.,
is Co-Director of the NYU Wagner
Rudin Center for Transportation
Policy & Management. Selected US High-Speed Ground Transportation Efforts *denotes federally designated *California Corridor. A 700-mile new HSR
system linking San Francisco, Oakland,
and Sacramento with Los Angeles and San
Diego. In planning for almost 10 years, its
future is questionable. CA has also been
pursuing Maglev in some areas. *Chicago Hub. A 2,313-mile incremental
HSR system, linking 8 states — Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The larg-
er Midwest Regional Rail Initiative
(MWRRI), which also includes Iowa, is
more extensive and adds another 700
miles to the federally designated Chicago
Hub. Though some incremental improve-
ments have been made on short seg-
ments of the Hub (primarily in Illinois),
neither the Hub nor the MWRRI have
moved past the planning phases. *Florida Corridor. A 356-mile system
linking Tampa, Orlando, and Miami, both
incremental HSR and new HSR were pur-
sued. Neither has succeeded. *Keystone Corridor. The full corridor
links Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, PA, for
a total of 349 miles. After having previ-
ously pursued new HSR and Maglev along
the full corridor, the recent incremental
HSR effort focuses only on the 104 miles
between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, PA.
Speeds will be increased to 110 mph and
electric trains introduced in fall 2006. Northeast Corridor (NEC). The 456-mile
NEC mainline links Washington, DC and
Boston, MA via New York City. Legally,
there are two branch lines: the Empire
Corridor between New York City and
Albany, NY, and the Keystone Corridor,
both of which are federally designated
HSR corridors. Incremental HSR has been
introduced on the NEC. Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail. This
incremental HSR system would link 5
states and Toronto, Canada and could
serve as a link between the Chicago Hub,
and the Northeast, Keystone, and Empire
Corridors. It has been pursued unsuccess-
fully since 1975. * Pacific Northwest Corridor. An incre- mental HSR system of 466 miles linking
Eugene, OR with Vancouver, BC, via
Tacoma and Seattle, WA. Improvements
have lagged due to uneven interest
among the states and Canada. Current
maximum speeds remain at 79 mph. Texas Triangle. Linking Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, TX, new HSR
was pursued in the 1980s but failed
after five years. Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Technical Monograph: Transportation
Planning for the Philadelphia-Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad Corridor, volume 2 (Washington, DC: FRA, March 2004) I N THE R EGION 6 N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL Q UALITY C OMMUNITIES W ORKSHOP : A DVANCING THE T RANSPORTATION – L AND U SE C ONNECTION On June 13, 2006, in Binghamton, New York, the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in conjunction with the
University Transportation Research Center, held “Quality
Communities Workshop: Advancing the Transportation – Land
Use Connection.” The purpose of the workshop was to provide
transportation stakeholders an opportunity to influence New
York’s approach to integrating transportation investment deci-
sions with community land use planning. Participants included
representatives from local and state government, regional plan-
ning organizations, academic experts and other transportation
professionals interested in having a constructive dialogue on
this subject. Lieutenant Governor Mary O. Donohue spoke on the Quality
Communities Initiative, a program built on creating strong part-
nerships between state and local governments for the purpose
of investing in those communities. The Lt. Governor noted that
the City of Binghamton, a pilot Quality Communities location, is
applying innovative solutions to strengthen its economy,
enhance the local community, and improve the quality of its
natural environment. One of the important components of the
Quality Communities Initiative involves ensuring transportation
improvements contribute to a community’s continued growth
and are in keeping with the community’s vision. NYSDOT Commissioner Thomas J. Madison framed the workshop
as a learning and listening effort and encouraged everyone to
be generous with comments and input. Allison L. C. de Cerreño,
Co-Director of the NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation
Policy & Management, served as the day’s overall moderator
and facilitator. Four interactive sessions were held that includ-
ed both presentations and follow-up discussions on: Integrating
Land Use and Transportation, Transportation Visioning,
Transportation-Land Use Management Tools, and The Economy-
Planning for Growth. Session moderators were John Poorman,
of the Capital District Transportation Committee; Peter
Plumeau of Wilbur Smith Associates; Stephen Ferranti of SRF
Associates; and Steve Munson of NYSDOT. Georges Jacquemart
of Buckhurst, Fish & Jacquemart, provided the Keynote, sug-
gesting that communities use tools and strategies which consid-
er all transportation users and the system as a whole and that
are appropriate to each community’s unique needs. A conclud-
ing panel summarized the major workshop themes and present-
ed some potential next step actions. Clearly, the concept of linking transportation investment
decisions with land use planning is not a new concept to
transportation professionals or the municipalities affected by
these decisions. In many respects, NYSDOT has endorsed this
concept through several of the Department’s programs, such
as the Arterial Access Management Program, Context Sensitive
Solutions, and its Public Involvement processes. The thirteen
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) throughout New York State have made considerable effort to address the transporta-
tion investment/land use planning linkage through technical
assistance by MPO staffs and through various studies. In addition,
Commissioner Madison, as a member of the Quality Communities
Interagency Working Group, is committed to working with
local governments and community organizations to find smart,
innovative transportation solutions to improve the quality
of communities. Nevertheless, the Department has recognized shortcomings in its
overall approach to integrating investment decisions with land
use planning. The 2004 report of the N.Y.S. Advisory Panel on
Transportation Policy for 2025, Transportation — Trouble Ahead:
Findings and Recommendations, found traffic congestion is often
the result of poor land use decisions. Further, the report recom-
mended that NYSDOT must lead the effort to link land use and
transportation decisions to ensure quality communities with
effective transportation systems. The Department appreciates
the need to take a more proactive role through collaborative
leadership. This concept was among the common themes that
resonated throughout the workshop sessions. The major themes
are provided below: There is a need for coordination, cooperation, communi- cation, and information sharing among the various stake-
holders in the land-use and transportation decision making
process. The key to success in transportation investment
decisions and land-use planning is forging a strong partnership
with all affected parties, taking advantage of the locals’ Panel members from left to right: Steve Munson, NYSDOT; Stephen Ferranti, SRF & Associates; Peter Plumeau, Wilbur Smith Associates; John Poorman, Capital District Transportation Committee; Allison C. de Cerreño, NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management; and Tim Gilchrist, NYSDOT B Y C LIFFORD A. T HOMAS Coutesy of NYSDOT 7 N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL VOLUME X NO . 1 F ALL 2006 knowledge in terms of their vision for the
area, and reaching common goals and
objectives through communication and
information sharing. As Peter Plumeau
stated in the Transportation Visioning ses-
sion, “use transportation investment as a
way to improve the community rather than
a way to get through the community.” Growth can happen quickly and expo- nentially, so communities need to be
pro-active and have a comprehensive
plan in place. It was noted that communi-
ties are better equipped to manage growth
when they have a plan that adequately
addresses how to best balance competing
goals, such as preserving open space,
maintaining a small town character, and
promoting growth. There is a need for consistency and complementarity in community com-
prehensive plans in their discussions on
economic sustainability, transporta-
tion, and public health. Many communi-
ties do, in fact, have comprehensive
plans but transportation is only a small or
separate component of the plan. In some
cases, local governments simply do not
have the resources to conduct the right
kind of planning. It is important to look at the needs of each town and village independently,
but also to look next door and beyond. A
transportation-land use decision made by
a community will undoubtedly affect
surrounding communities, and in some
instances, those communities may be
competing for similar goals. On this point,
Tim Gilchrist, NYSDOT’s Chief of
Transportation Strategy, made it clear that the role of the Department will not be an
arbiter between competing parties, but
rather a resource to use in making the dif-
ficult decisions. Change is possible. For instance, zoning regulations can be changed to accommo-
date a community’s vision. Several case
studies were discussed where zoning was
changed to restrict residential density
and/or identify parcels for permanent pro-
tection, with the intent of controlling
growth. The challenge, however, is educat-
ing local officials on the appropriate use of
these tools (e.g., re-zoning, levels of service
analysis, etc.) to initiate positive change. Next Steps The NYS Department of Transportation is
just beginning to identify appropriate
strategies on how to move forward with
integrating transportation investment deci-
sions with community land use planning.
The goal is to institutionalize a best
approach, or a series of best approaches, in
the way the Department works with local
governments in the planning and program-
ming of transportation investments. The Department’s draft Statewide
Transportation Master Plan, entitled
Transportation Strategies for a New Age:
New York’s Transportation Plan for 2030, rec-
ognizes that land use planning authority rests
with local governments. The Plan also recog-
nizes that the transportation sector must play
a proactive role in support of these efforts
along with ensuring that the transportation
implications of local plans are considered. In
fact, throughout New York State, there are
numerous examples of communities that are
doing the right kind of visionary planning and
are factoring in the transportation compo-
nent. Conversely, there are other communi-
ties that struggle with this concept. As a next step action, the Department will
convene a working group of transportation
stakeholders to collaboratively advise
the Department and develop an overall
strategy to enhance coordination of trans-
portation and land use planning. Some of
the strategy actions may include holding
workshops and training sessions for munici-
palities to educate local officials on planning
tools and showcase best practices. The
Department is also considering a new com-
munity transportation planning grant program
as a future state budget initiative. NYSDOT
has recently been collaborating with neigh-
boring states concerning this issue and will be
pursuing these engagements to enhance the
effort. Finally, the Department will continue
to work closely with its MPO partners in their
efforts to assist municipalities in developing
plans and conducting various studies. A sum-
mary of the proceedings from the June 13 th Workshop will be available in the fall. Clifford A. Thomas is Director of the
Office of Central and Northeastern
Transportation Strategy for the New York
State Department of Transportation. “There is a need for coordination, coopera- tion, communication, and information shar- ing among the various stakeholders in the land-use and trans- portation decision- making process.” Transportation (NYSDOT) held a semi-
nal workshop this past June, with
various stakeholders to explore this
connection. Clifford Thomas writes an
In the Region article summarizing key
highlights from the workshop and
NYSDOT’s future plans to action. Mobility of a higher speed is the focus
of Allison C. de Cerreño’s piece about
a current Rudin Center research proj-
ect on High-Speed Rail (HSR) efforts
in the United States, specifically look-
ing at Pennsylvania’s Keystone
Corridor and lessons learned that may
apply to future HSR initiatives. People traveling through New York’s
Airports have noticed that delays
have reached new levels. For
decades, Stewart International
Airport has been suggested as a fourth
airport to serve the region. However,
various impediments, mostly due to
its distance from Manhattan and land-
side access, have prevented the air-
port from really taking off except for
some regional jet service. In a
Surface, Air, and Waterways article,
Doreen Frasca discusses Stewart’s his-
tory, recent improvements at the air-
port and what still needs to occur for
Stewart to reach its potential. The Rudin Center is keenly interested
in transportation projects that reduce
sprawl and improve the quality
of urban life. Overtime, the Journal
has presented articles in support of this
goal and in this edition offers a Beyond
the Region article by Liz Drake
of EDAW about the proposed Atlanta
Beltline project, under which the
pattern of urban sprawl would be
changed by organizing some of that
region’s future growth around parks,
transit, and trails located in the inner
core of Atlanta. Finally, since his arrival last year at
the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (NYMTC), Joel
Ettinger has been introducing new
approaches for improving transporta-
tion planning in the New York metro-
politan area. In a back-page feature article, he and the NYMTC staff dis-
cuss what they are learning from met-
ropolitan planning organizations in
other urbanized areas that could have
useful applications in this region. As always, we hope you enjoy reading
this edition of the Journal. (Letter from the Editor Cont.) I S S TEWART R EADY TO BE THE F OURTH N EW Y ORK A IRPORT ? 8 The Tri-State metropolitan region’s three major airports are
some of the busiest in the United States. The 100 million annual
travelers passing through them are subject to extensive delays.
La Guardia, Newark Liberty International, and John F. Kennedy
International (JFK) Airports all ranked in the top five in airport
departure delays. On the land side, travelers accessing these air-
ports are also faced with substantial traffic congestion and lim-
ited choices. For decades, there has been talk of a “fourth New York airport”
to relieve congestion and allow for growth in air travel. In the
1960s, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ)
advanced a plan to build the region’s biggest airport on 6,000
acres in New Jersey’s “Great Swamp,” located about 26 miles
west of New York City. Local and environmental opposition was
swift and effective in curtailing their plans. Since then, whenever talk turns to a fourth airport, Stewart
International Airport near Newburgh, NY is foremost in the dis-
cussion. Fifty-five miles from Midtown Manhattan, Stewart is
located in the rapidly growing suburbs of Orange County. It is
within an hour’s drive of 2 million people, and within 90 minutes
of 9 million. In acreage it is larger than JKF and LaGuardia com-
bined and at nearly 12,000 feet in length, its primary runway is
an alternate landing site for the space shuttle. In addition,
Stewart has its own air traffic control sector that operates inde-
pendently of the New York metropolitan airports, contributing to
the highest levels of on time performance in the northeast. Ground access, a historical obstacle, is being greatly improved.
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) will com-
plete construction in late 2007 of a $50 million interchange from
I-84 at Drury Lane, leading directly to the airport. The New York
State Thruway Authority will connect I-84 and I–87 by early 2008.
These two projects representing collectively $100 million of
investment will facilitate road access to Stewart from all direc-
tions. The Airport also has the potential to serve Manhattan with a one-
seat train ride. Under SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized $100
million for the extension of Metro North’s Port Jervis line to the
airport. The 3 1/2-mile spur would connect over an existing
active rail line from the Salisbury Mills-Cornwall station. The Port
Jervis line will have direct access to Manhattan upon
completion of the “Access to the Region’s Core” project. Other possible airports that have been cited as a fourth New York
airport, including Atlantic City, Trenton – Mercer County and N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL S URFACE , A IR , AND W ATERWAYS : F OCUSING I N B Y D OREEN F RASCA Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania, will not have the access, facilities or
space to grow that Stewart possesses or could possess in coming
years. Yet, while Stewart offers many advantages, its commercial
history developed in fits and starts, additional, significant chal-
lenges remain. Stewart’s Early History In 1970, 1,854 acres of Stewart Air Force Base was acquired by New
York State, which transferred operational control to the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to develop and oper-
ate it for domestic and international airfreight transport, general
aviation and other airport purposes. The MTA saw the opportunity
to create at Stewart the elusive fourth New York airport. It con-
demned 8,600 acres of adjoining properties to the west, paying in
excess of $100 million, extended Runway 9/27 by 4,000 feet, and
made several other major improvements. However, development
costs, a boom in activity and capital development at the three
PANYNJ airports, coupled with the 55-mile distance between
Stewart and its desired customer base in New York City prompted
the MTA to abandon its plans. In 1982, the State transferred operating responsibility to NYSDOT
which, in partnership with the Urban Development Corporation,
embarked on a program to encourage the development of airport
property for appropriate aviation and industrial uses. By the late
1980s, tenants on the property included WR Grace, Anheuser
Busch, Johnson Controls, Grand Union, and American Express. Finally in 1990, American Airlines inaugurated the first commercial
service with three daily roundtrips to its Chicago and Raleigh-
Durham hubs. It was joined by its American Eagle affiliate (to JFK),
United Express (to Dulles and Boston Logan), USAir and USAir
Express (to Pittsburgh and later Charlotte, and to Philadelphia and
BWI, respectively), and Delta (to Atlanta). New carriers and incum-
bents inaugurated point-to-point commercial and charter service
to a few upstate New York communities (Syracuse and Rochester),
business centers (New York City and Washington, DC) and the most
heavily trafficked leisure destinations (Orlando, Fort Lauderdale
and Las Vegas). The Privatization of Stewart Stewart appeared to be finding its footing. Traffic peaked in 1995
at just over 800,000 total passengers. In 1997, a new $13 million,
7-gate passenger terminal was opened. The following year, after
the International Arrivals Building at JFK had been leased for a 30-
year term to a private consortium, Governor Pataki announced his Courtesy of http://www.stewartintlairport.com/gettingto.html 9 N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL VOLUME X NO . 1 F ALL 2006 of times and the worst of times” in the airline
industry. Load factors are up and fares have
improved from the airline’s perspective,
but system capacity is still down about 12%
from pre-9/11 levels and bankruptcies have
reduced the number of new entrants. Further,
the 50-seat commuter jets (the aircraft
predominantly used at Stewart) are not
delivering on their promise of being more cost
effective to operate. With the price of oil
in excess of $70 per barrel and little to no
capacity in the system, now is not the most
propitious time for an airline to test out a
market like Stewart’s. Thus the principal challenges are the cost
and frequency of service. Low fare service
is critically important to the airport’s growth.
Ticket prices into connecting hubs like Detroit,
Philadelphia and Chicago are very expensive —
a weekday roundtrip ticket to Detroit
on Northwest purchased on the internet three
weeks in advance costs over $700. Even with
a one-seat ride from New York City, few
people will want to travel more than 90
minutes by train unless fares are competitive
and schedules reasonable, both on the train
and on the plane. Nevertheless, as ground access improvements
enhance the airport’s reach beyond its imme-
diate service area, as the airline industry con-
tinues its slow return to better health, Stewart
should get some much-needed attention. And,
Stewart’s potential has again attracted the
Port Authority’s interest. The congestion problem in the New York
market has few solutions. Developing Stewart
as the fourth New York airport is one of the
better ones. intention to pursue the privatization of
Stewart International Airport. Commercial service airports in the United
States are typically publicly owned and oper-
ated by municipal, state governments or pub-
lic authorities operating in their stead. The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) only
recently permitted airports to be privatized
under a pilot program that initially limited the
number to five. The Stewart privatization
attracted five bidders, the highest of which
was National Express Group (NEG), a British-
based company that ran East Midlands and
Bournemouth Airports in England. NEG’s win-
ning bid furnished the State $35 million
upfront, with a provision for additional lease
payments totaling 5% of gross revenue annual-
ly beginning in year 10 of its 99-year lease.
The total net present value to the State was
estimated to be approximately $60 million.
NEG proposed a $48.6 million capital improve-
ment program during its initial five -year peri-
od, with $10 million coming from company
funds and the balance from Federal Airport
Improvement Funds, Passenger Facility
Charges and third party investment. In the final year of NYSDOT operations (1999),
the airport turned a profit of approximately
$1.9 million on gross operating revenues of
$8.2 million. Over the first five years of pri-
vate operations the profit margin declined to
about $1.5 million in 2003 as traffic fell pre-
cipitously. The effects of 9/11, a weakened
economy and rising fuel prices have been dev-
astating to airports of all sizes and Stewart is
no exception. From the moment NEG was
declared the winning bidder in 1998 through
the end of 2002, airline traffic decreased 62%
from 665,000 to 252,000 total passengers. It
recovered in 2004, to approximately 530,000
passengers but boomeranged sharply in 2005
to 325,000 as the result of additional airline
bankruptcies and service cutbacks. Despite the downturn in demand, airport man-
agement has continued a plan of investment
and airport improvements including: a $3 million renovation to the terminal building to improve passenger flow, which is about three-quarters complete;
a new corporate jet center opened in July 2006;
a $15 million Hilton all-suites hotel and conference center at the airport’s front entrance; and,
a 100,000 sq. ft. cargo complex. Four carriers currently provide service
atStewart, three with commuter jet aircraft:
US Airways Express to Philadelphia, American
Eagle to Chicago, and NWA to Detroit. A
fourth, Allegiant Air, serves the Orlando
(Sanford) market from Stewart with MD80 air-
craft and is planning to add more Florida des-
tinations before the end of this year. The Future In the words of Charles Dickens, it is “the best “The congestion problem in the New York market has few solutions. Developing Stewart as the fourth New York airport is one of the better ones.” Doreen Frasca is President and Principal
of Frasca & Associates, L.L.C., a leading
transportation advisory firm which cur-
rently provides financial advisory servic-
es to Stewart Airport. F ACTS & F IGURES Airport Delays Sources:
http://www.avoiddelays.com and
http://www.avoiddelays.com/why-
delays/truth-about-delays.asp TOP 5 MOST DELAYED DEPARTURE AIRPORTS CITY % DELAYED 1 Atlanta, GA (ATL) 39% 2 Philadelphia, PA (PHL) 38% 3 New York, NY (JFK) 37% 4 Newark, NJ (EWR) 35% 5 Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX (DFW) 34% C A U S E S O F F L I G H T D E L AY S A M O N G T H E N AT I O N ’ S TO P 1 0 A I R P O RT S 1. National Aviation System (47%) 2. Aircraft Arriving Late (25%) 3. Air Carrier (19%) 4. Cancelled (5%) 5. Weather (3%) 6. Diverted (1%) 7. Security (0%) TOP 5 MOST DELAYED ARRIVAL AIRPORTS CITY % DELAYED 1 Newark, NJ (EWR) 45% 2 New York, NY (JFK) 43% 3 Atlanta, GA (ATL) 42% 4 Philadelphia, PA (PHL) 40% 5 New York, NY (LGA) 39% 10 N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL B EYOND THE R EGION T HE N EXT B IG T HING IN A TLANTA Atlanta, more than most other American cities, has a gift for
periodic reinvention. In the 1970s, city visionaries laid the
foundation for Hartsfield-Jackson to become the world’s
busiest airport. In 1996, the Centennial Olympic Games made
Atlanta a notable international destination. The Atlanta
Beltline may very well be the next great thing that transforms
the landscape and identity of the southeast’s capital. The Atlanta region has grown as quickly as any major metro-
politan area in recent US history. Population forecasts suggest
that the negative consequences of rapid, unplanned develop-
ment — long commutes, poor air quality, auto dependency —
are likely to worsen. The City of Atlanta is expected to add
another 150,000 residents by 2030, while the region will
expand from 3.7 to 6 million people. Moreover, not all of
Atlanta’s communities have participated fully in the
region’s unprecedented growth. Many core neighborhoods,
particularly in the south and west, continue to suffer from
economic disinvestment. The BeltLine — by attracting and organizing some of the
region’s future growth around parks, transit, and trails locat-
ed in the inner core of Atlanta — will change this pattern of
regional sprawl and lead to a vibrant and livable Atlanta with
an enhanced quality of life for all city residents. While most major urban areas sprung up around water, it was
transportation that gave rise to Atlanta. Atlanta’s freight rail-
roads were built after the Civil War to expand the industrial
base of the city. These rails for the most part predate the
adjacent neighborhoods, weaving through early industrial
areas to form a rough loop around the City center. The concept of the BeltLine is to create a special funding dis-
trict focused mainly around the rail corridors that would pre-
serve historic assets, create signature parks, trails, and gath-
ering spaces, revitalize streets, and build neighborhood-
friendly transit. This revitalized public realm would in turn
attract quality, vibrant mixed use development and new resi-
dential opportunities. The BeltLine is a sustainable new model of growth that pro-
poses to combine greenspace, transit, and development along
four historic railroad segments that encircle the urban core.
Abandoned industrial landscapes are more often associated
with declining Rust Belt cities than Sun Belt metropolises. Yet,
the 22 miles of rail corridor and the nearly 3,000 acres of adja-
cent underused land pose a major challenge to Atlanta’s
intown regeneration. When looked at more closely, however,
these rail rights-of-way and nearby properties form the basis of an unrivaled network of distinctive buildings, public spaces,
and convenient transportation links that could join over 45 his-
toric neighborhoods and many prominent institutions. The BeltLine proposes to convert underused rail corridors around
the city core into a continuous system of transit and greenways
surrounded by parks and pedestrian-friendly mixed use centers of
development. Essential to the concept is that each of the three
key elements — transit, greenspace and development — is inter-
related and that the resulting network connects seamlessly with
the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority’s (MARTA) bus
and rail services and other transit opportunities, as well as
adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed Beltline is unique as a transportation route because
it is based on railroad corridors, which predate the surrounding
neighborhoods. As a result, the BeltLine typically runs between
neighborhoods, rather than through them, resulting in a complex
set of connectivity issues. With its industrial roots, many parcels
along the BeltLine are large and irregularly shaped “super
blocks” that further hamper pedestrian access and often create
discontinuous streets. The project must address these issues as
the corridor re-orients from freight activity to transit and
recreational use. Over the years, various proposals to reuse parts of these historic
railroads have emerged. In the early 1990s, the City of Atlanta
envisioned a Cultural Loop as tourist-oriented transportation for
the 1996 Olympic Games. The route would serve Underground
Atlanta and other cultural sites such as the King Center, the
Atlanta Botanical Gardens and King Plow Arts Center. The concept
also included a bicycle path in some areas. B Y L I Z D R A K E “Unique among Atlanta’s recent planning efforts, the BeltLine project gave rise to a comprehensive dialogue about many of the City’s most complex issues, including transportation, affordable housing, public health, and economic equity.” (Continued on page 12) 11 Ryan Gravel outlined the current Atlanta
BeltLine proposal in his 1999 graduate thesis
in Architecture and City Planning at the
Georgia Institute of Technology. The concept
is based on the premise that public infra-
structure spurs and shapes urban growth.
Gravel’s thesis expanded the Cultural Loop
idea, adding mixed use redevelopment of the
underused industrial land adjacent to the rail
corridor and promoting a transit system that
serves tourists and local residents. The tran-
sit line would include intown neighborhoods
and connect to the MARTA system. Parallel
bicycle and walking paths would provide a 22-
mile linear park along the corridor. Beginning in the summer of 2001, with the
support of Councilmember and then City
Council President Cathy Woolard, a grassroots
campaign launched the BeltLine to the fore-
front of regional transportation projects. In
February 2004, Councilwoman Woolard
helped Gravel to establish Friends of the
BeltLine, a non-profit group dedicated to the
preservation and comprehensive redevelop-
ment of the BeltLine. In May of 2004 Mayor Shirley Franklin
declared the BeltLine a priority of her admin-
istration. As the project gained momentum,
the Atlanta Development Authority chose a
team led by EDAW to assess the feasibility of
a financing mechanism for the BeltLine. The
March 2005 Feasibility Study determined that a tax allocation district (TAD), which
dedicates future increases in property tax
revenue, could fund a major portion of the
project costs and leverage additional
financial support. Unique among Atlanta’s recent planning
efforts, the BeltLine project gave rise to a
comprehensive dialogue about many of the
city’s most complex issues, including trans-
portation, affordable housing, public health,
and economic equity. As a result, public and
stakeholder involvement in the plan was
especially intense with almost 100 coordina-
tion meetings held from May to September
of 2005. The specific alignment of the transit system,
as well as the mode of transit, is still under
study by MARTA and others. Nonetheless, The
BeltLine represents a fundamental new
approach to mobility around the central core. By finally linking comprehensive land use and
transportation decisions, the BeltLine
becomes a framework for long-term sustain-
ability that emphasizes a range of convenient
mobility choices in a region that has been
very heavily dependent upon the single occu-
pant vehicle. To support this vision, the initial
land use framework for the BeltLine calls for
pedestrian-oriented, mixed use development
with higher employment and residential den-
sities at strategic points, such as proposed
transit stops. While some areas around the N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL VOLUME X NO . 1 F ALL 2006 Liz Drake is Senior Associate of EDAW. Rudin Center Highlights The BeltLine will consist of transit, trails, and adjacent development Courtesy of EDAW SAVE THE DATE Tuesday September 26, 2006 8:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Good to Go: Transit Options for Older Adults NYU Kimmel Center Rosenthal Pavilion Wednesday November 1, 2006 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Transit-Oriented Development Forum NYU Wagner Rudin Center Puck Building FEATURED PROJECT Best Practices for Context
Sensitive Solutions (CSS) in Urban
Areas. Funded by the Mineta Transportation
Institute in San José, CA, the goal of
this study is to provide an assessment
and identify best practices related to
how CSS is used in practice in urban
areas. The effort will examine the
role of the states and municipalities
and the types of coordination either
present or needed while exploring
several related areas, including: how
CSS is incorporated into basic plan-
ning, programming, and design; what
kind of policies have grown out of this
process or help guide it; how public
participation and stakeholder involve-
ment is carried out and measured;
what kinds of obstacles exist to suc-
cessfully incorporating CSS in prac-
tice; and, what kinds of decisions are
finally made in terms of balancing the
various needs related to parking, non-
motorized traffic, and throughput. For more information on events or projects, please call 212-998-7545 or visit our website at: wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter 12 with HSR in the Keystone different from earlier attempts is
that all three of these factors came into play concurrently. In
earlier years, there was some leadership, but either the means
and/or the authority was lacking. In the 1960s, all three ele-
ments were missing. In the 1980s, the PHSIRPC was mandated
to expire even as it was established, undermining its authori-
ty. In the early years of the KCIP, the financial means and
authority were present, but leadership at Amtrak was lacking. In the most recent effort, however, Amtrak (under Gunn),
PennDOT, and the Governor played key roles in galvanizing sup-
port and demonstrating a serious commitment to HSR. The
funding was available and the authority was present. Amtrak
owned the line and viewed the KCIP as fitting into its broader
goals for the nation-wide system. The Commonwealth, via
PennDOT, was already actively providing financial support for
Amtrak operations along the corridor. Further, PennDOT had
been exploring opportunities for the Keystone for some time
and had the support from the Governor based on its broader
transportation goals and objectives. Clear Benefits and Roles for All Operators. All the key opera-
tors along the Keystone see benefit from the KCIP. Amtrak will
be able to increase and enhance service, with corresponding
ridership and revenue increases. PennDOT will be able to real-
ize several key objectives related to its broader transportation
goals for the Commonwealth. NS remains concerned about hor-
izontal clearance and weight restrictions, but recognizes that
the improvements will aid their operations by making the
entire corridor more efficient. Similarly, SEPTA is concerned
about capacity as intercity service increases, but recognizes
benefits to its own services from track, communication, and
signal improvements. With respect to roles, in the most recent effort, there has been
a clear division of responsibilities in implementing the program
and related elements. The KCIP, as ultimately developed, des-
ignated which agency would be responsible for what both in
terms of payments and overall management of the project.
Additional funding solicited from NS, for example, was tied Next Big Thing in Atlanta (Cont. from page 11) corridor do not yet achieve densities sufficient to support tran-
sit ridership, the framework places more people, jobs and
entertainment options close to future transit. After a summer of intense debate and community participa-
tion, the Atlanta City Council, the Atlanta public school board
and the Fulton County Commission voted in November and
December 2005 to direct all property tax increases (through a
tax allocation district or TAD) over 25 years in the redevelop-
ment area toward parks, trails, transit and housing. The BeltLine concept has progressed considerably in a short
time frame as a result of a strong commitment and coordinat-
ed effort by multiple organizations, including the Atlanta
Development Authority, the BeltLine Partnership, MARTA, the
Trust for Public Land, and the PATH Foundation. The BeltLine’s
success will continue to rely on public involvement, strong
neighborhood participation, coordination among many part-
ners, and a combination of public and private resources. The BeltLine TAD will begin an extraordinary, 25 year effort to
shape a truly sustainable 21 st -century Atlanta. Keystone Corridor (Cont. from page 5) specifically to work that would benefit freight rail by allowing
greater weights. Similarly, additional funding contributed by
SEPTA has been specifically tied to improvements that will aid
commuter rail. The ROW Is Already Prepared for High-Speed Service. The
Philadelphia-Harrisburg portion of the Keystone was already elec-
trified, and almost fully grade separated. Thus, the opportunity
existed to deploy HSR at a relatively low cost. Further, because
the work is being performed mainly in the current ROW, certain
environmental requirements have been avoided, reducing time
and cost, while helping to mitigate political and/or community
opposition. A clear counterpoint for this is provided by the remainder of the
western portion of the corridor. This portion of the line is char-
acterized by numerous curves, steep grades, and at-grade cross-
ings, and no electrification. Just bringing the tracks and power
supply up to current standards for HSR service would be signifi-
cantly more difficult and therefore more expensive. Amtrak Owns the ROW. Not owning the ROW proved a key diffi-
culty for HSR in Florida. With full operational control of the
Keystone between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Amtrak is able to
more easily deal with signaling, dispatching, power distribution,
and maintenance decisions. Further, when the agency imple-
menting the changes is the actual operator of the service, the
direct benefits from investment are more evident. In contrast, NS owns the corridor between Harrisburg and
Pittsburgh and as a matter of policy requires separate tracks for
passenger trains operating in excess of 90 mph. According to NS, No heavy-duty rail freight line has 110-mph passenger
trains operating over it today. Where freight trains do
operate over 110-mph track…the penalties imposed
on freight trains are substantial. In a heavy-duty
freight environment…high-speed passenger trains
must operate over tracks dedicated to their use. 6 Again, making such changes would significantly add to the cost to
implement HSR along this portion of the line and there are fewer
incentives for doing so. The Costs to Reach the 90-minute, 110 mph Trip Time and
Speed Goals Were Considered Reasonable. Finally, and in part
related to the elements identified above (Amtrak ownership of
the ROW, electrification, and grade separation), and in part
because of the decision to pursue modest changes resulting in
incremental HSR rather than new HSR or Maglev, both Amtrak and
PennDOT were able to cover program costs within their annual
budgets, thus avoiding the need for political support to raise
project funds. 1. Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), Pennsylvania Statewide Passenger Rail Needs Assessment: Technical Report
(Harrisburg: TAC, December 2001). 2. David Gunn, former CEO and President of Amtrak, Personal Communication, 3/21/06. 3. “Pennsylvania Governor Rendell, Amtrak President Gunn Announce Keystone Corridor Improvement Plan; Philadelphia-Harrisburg Trip Will be
Shorter; Safety to be Improved,” PR Newswire 7/20/04, http://www.findarti-
cles.com/p/articles/mi-m4PRN/is_2004_July_20/ai_n6115256 (accessed
1/24/05). 4. “Keystone Corridor to Be Upgraded,” International Railway Journal (September 2004), online, accessed 1/24/05, http://www.findarticles.com/arti- cles/mi_inOBQQ/is_9_44/ai_n6239858. 5. Calvin Cassidy, Rail Project Coordinator, Bureau of Public Transportation, PennDOT, Personal Communication, 2/2/06. 6. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Corporate Affairs, Letter to Planners of Passenger Train Projects, June 15, 2005. 13 N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL VOLUME X NO . 1 F ALL 2006 the design, construction, and operations/
maintenance of the transportation network
across all modes. Local circumstances vary,
but the individuals who have oversight
responsibilities should be available for con-
sultation. These are the practitioners who
can adjust the timing of a signalized inter-
section to allow more time for a pedestrian
to cross, or who can build a turn lane on a
congested roadway to improve traffic flow.
These transportation professionals pursue
policy goals as directed by local officials,
and there are usually numerous opportuni-
ties for input through established public par-
ticipation channels. At the regional level, metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) make decisions regard-
ing the expenditure of federal funds within
designated metropolitan areas. Citizen par-
ticipation has been required in the MPO plan-
ning and decision-making processes for many
years by the planning regulations issued by
the Federal Highway Administration and
Federal Transit Administration. However, the
recently passed federal transportation legis-
lation, SAFETEA-LU, includes stronger
requirements for public involvement. AARP is
seeking to engage volunteers to be the voice
of the 50+ consumer at metropolitan trans-
portation planning tables. The national staff
is currently training state staff and volun-
teers to engage in the local, regional, and
state transportation processes. If the trans-
portation network is to be diversified, the
50+ population should be key stakeholders in
determining the character and extent of
those investments. AARP’s commitment to safe driving and
mobility options is central to achieving our
livable communities vision, as well as the
broader goal of facilitating independence,
choice, and control for individuals as they Living Behind the Geraniums (Cont. from page 3) Given the high level of service, fares for taxi-
cabs can often be quite high in low-density
areas. Volunteer driver programs are a com-
mon alternative throughout the country and
provide an important means of keeping
older persons connected to their communi-
ty. Many of these programs offer door-to-
door service, whereby volunteers enter pri-
vate homes or facilities to assist customers
with physical movements, putting away gro-
ceries, or even dressing. Nonmotorized transportation options have
received renewed attention over the last
twenty years. Bicycling and walking are
excellent methods to complete trips within
regions, but adequate sidewalks and travel
signage are often not present to protect the
pedestrian. Similarly, bike lanes and signage
are extremely inconsistent in many cities,
counties, and towns. The National Complete Streets Coalition
calls for developing transportation networks
that accommodate all users. Planning pro-
fessionals encourage increased connectivity
among modal paths and greater attention to
the land use-transportation connection. 12 Adjustments to road design geometry, signal
timing, and traffic-calming techniques can
help protect pedestrians and bicyclists as
they share the road with other modes. 13 And with all of these mobility options — with the
possible exception of volunteer driver
programs — the capital equipment, public
infrastructure design and construction, and
the operating characteristics of the facili-
ties and services are determined by a local,
regional, and/or state planning process. Invigorating the Public Planning and
Community Building Process Local elected officials, planners, engineers,
and designers are responsible for overseeing (Continued on page 15) R UDIN C ENTER S UPPORTERS , 2006 The NYU Wagner Rudin Center for
Transportation Policy and Management
acknowledges the following entities for
their generous support in 2006. Benefactors Metropolitan Transportation Authority
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council New York State Laborers’ Employers’ Cooperation
and Education Trust Fund The Open Planning Project
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey Rudin Family
University Transportation Research Center Region 2 Sponsors and Contributors Con Edison
DMJM Harris
Bombardier Transportation
New York City Economic Development Corporation Marsh
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. Patrons and Friends Arcadis
ARUP
Booz Allen Hamilton
Empire State Development
Frasca & Associates
General Contractors Association of New York, Inc. Hatch Mott MacDonald
International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local Union 15, A-D John F. Kennedy International Airport Terminal One John F. Kennedy International Airport Terminal Four Landrum & Brown
LiRo Group
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
New York Building Congress
NYC & Company
NYU Wagner Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems (ICIS) Parsons
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Silvester + Tafuro
STV Incorporated
Thornton Tomasetti Group
Urbitran Group
URS Corporation
Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology Washington Group International Project Sponsors Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Mineta Transportation Institute
National Transit Institute, Rutgers University New York Metropolitan Transportation Council New York State Assembly
New York State Department of Transportation The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey Source: National Household Travel Survey, 2001 Figure 3: Only for medical and dental visits do nondrivers age 50+ make as many trips as drivers 14 N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL national organizations is to learn the best practices of others as
well as to share NYMTC’S innovative practices. Anecdotally, it is recognized that some of the most innovative
activities in transportation are currently being undertaken by
some of the smallest metropolitan areas of the nation. A review
of the Federal Transit Administration’s Innovative Practices to
Increase Ridership web page bears out this observation. In recent years, NYMTC has looked to MPOs across the coun-
try for guidance and best practices in a number of issue
areas. This is particularly true in instances in which NYMTC
was attempting to undertake activities that were new to
our region. Four good examples of this are discussed below:
Emissions Reduction Planning, Integrating Demand
Management Programs, Best Practices Model, and Socio-
economic and Demographic Forecasts. Emissions Reduction Planning. Following the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center, the New York
metropolitan region received a Federal waiver of certain
requirements of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the requirement
for a quantitative assessment of the region's transportation plans
and programs to determine conformity with relevant motor vehi-
cle emissions milestones was waived for a three year period.
This was to allow adjustments to be made to regional trans-
portation simulation models to accommodate the displace-
ment of tens of thousands of jobs in lower Manhattan. In
turn, the legislation which granted the waiver required a
concerted effort by the region to enhance its motor vehicle
emissions reduction programs. As the MPO in the region, NYMTC was on point for coordinating
this new emissions reduction planning effort. Eighty supplemen-
tal measures were reviewed and analyzed in this process, many
of which were drawn from experiences in other regions. NYMTC
worked with organizations such as the North East States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and Environmental
Defense to tap into best practices from around the country, as
well as pursuing independent research. These efforts uncovered
information on programs to incent the use of cleaner fuels,
scrappage programs and electrification programs for trucks,
retrofit programs for school buses, and idling mitigation pro-
grams. NYMTC has convened a Clean Technologies Group to bring
its members together with manufacturers, fuel providers, trade
associations, fleet owners and other stakeholders to share infor-
mation and work toward implementing best practices. Integrating Demand Management Programs. Federal monies
which flow through NYMTC's planning process have since the
1980s been used to provide transportation demand management
programs that incent and facilitate alternatives to driving alone
in a car. However, these programs were established and devel-
oped in each of NYMTC's sub areas (New York City, Long Island
and the lower Hudson Valley) independently with many differ-
ences. Over time, they were also supplemented by regional pro-
grams that offered and marketed transit vouchers and travel
information. All of this resulted in a healthy but disjointed
regional program of demand management activities, which suf- Best Practices (Cont. from page 16) fered in terms of overall identity and visibility. The recent attempts to enhance motor vehicle emissions reduc-
tion have brought new focus to the need to better integrate
these programs and improve their overall visibility and effec-
tiveness. Similar situations existed in other regions and their
solutions were used as models for what could be accomplished
by NYMTC. Specifically, the San Francisco Bay Area faced a sim-
ilar situation in that its demand management programs had been
fragmented with no coordinated operating or marketing plan.
Despite that, the Bay Area had managed to integrate its pro-
grams and brand them with a common identity. Using the Bay Area as a model, NYMTC is in the process of inte-
grating and enhancing its demand management programs. This
was accomplished through the development of a "core" demand
management work program to be used universally and a signifi-
cant increase in funding for demand management programs in
general. On the marketing side, NYMTC is currently in the
process of developing a regional brand for these services. Once
in place, additional effort will be put towards the implementa-
tion of that brand. Best Practices Model. The development of the Best Practices
Model (BPM), which covers parts of three states, nine MPOs and
28 counties, included major data collection efforts and the cre-
ation of an integrated land use, forecasting, travel demand, and
air quality model. Working with federal, state and local trans-
portation and environmental agencies and other stakeholders,
the project team successfully addressed complex technical and
institutional issues and developed the first activity-based trans-
portation model in the nation. In doing so, NYMTC became a
national leader in travel demand modeling and a regional source
of transportation data for policy analyses. To create the Best Practices Model, a technical committee was
formed at the very beginning of the project to facilitate the
work. Given the scope of the model, a large amount of data
was needed, so stakeholders’ participation was crucial to getting
all the necessary information and guiding the development.
Special efforts were made to reach out to other states
and MPOs in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region
to reach agreement on crucial regional issues, including
forecasts, networks, zones, and survey data. An advisory
committee of experts from the San Francisco Bay Area MPO, “...some of the most innovative activities in transportation are currently being undertaken by some of the smallest metropoli- tan areas of the nation.” 15 N EW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL VOLUME X NO . 1 F ALL 2006 Best Practices (Cont. from page 14) (Living Behind the Geraniums (Cont. from page 13) 1. D. Hayden, Building Suburbia (NY: Pantheon, 2003) 2. Anthony Downs, Traffic: Why It’s Getting Worse, What Government Can Do (Washington, DC:
Brookings, 2004). 3. Bonnie Dobbs, Medical Conditions and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Literature (1960-2000)
(Washington, DC: NHTSA, 2005). 4. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Strategies for Medical Advisory Boards
and Licensing Review (Washington, DC: NHTSA,
2005). 5. L. Bailey, Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options. (Washington, DC: STPP, 2004). 6. AARP, AARP’s Blueprint for the Future Washington, DC: AARP, 2005). 7. L. Staplin, et al. Safe Mobility for Older People Notebook. (Washington, DC: NHTSA, 1999); J.
Stutts, Improving the Safety of Older Road Users,
NCHRP Synthesis 348 (Washington, DC: TRB,
2005). 8. L. Staplin, et al., Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians, (Washington, DC:
FHWA, 2001). 9. R. Dunphy, et al., Developing Around Transit: Strategies and Solutions That Work, (Washington,
DC: ULI, 2004). R. Cervero, et al., Transit- Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences,
Challenges, and Prospects, TCRP Report 102
(Washington, DC: TRB, 2005); Center for Transit-
Oriented Development (CTOD), Hidden in Plain
Sight: Capturing the Demand for Housing Near
Transit, (Washington: Federal Transit
Administration, 2005). 10. National Transit Database: 2004 National Summaries and Trends (Washington, Federal
Transit Administrtion, 2006) 11. Ibid. 12. Susan Handy, et al., Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There (Chicago: APA, 2003). 13. R. Ewing, “Impacts of Traffic-Calming,” Transportation Quarterly 55, 1 (2001): 33-46. the Chicago MPO, and others was formed
to provide critical advice throughout
the model development. Socio-economic and Demographic Forecasts.
Through the use of socioeconomic forecasting
models, NYMTC has the ability to take a num-
ber of inputs, including economic drivers and
demographic trends, to predict how the
region’s residents and workers will change by
2030 in terms of age, race, employment, and
more. To further learn and improve this fore-
casting process, NYMTC hosted a video con-
ference in July of 2005 with six MPOs from
around the country including the MPOs from:
Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon;
Dallas, Texas; Houston, Texas; Phoenix,
Arizona and Newark, New Jersey. These MPOs
presented their own forecasting process and
methodology and also critiqued NYMTC’s
process. The participants commended NYMTC
on its work. A land use model integrated into
the travel demand modeling process and the
ability to do "what if" analysis was discussed. Applying Best Practices to New Challenges NYMTC will be continuing to learn from oth-
ers in the months and years ahead. We plan
to hold a series of conferences on important
issues related to transportation planning and
programming in the New York metropolitan
area. Our first conference will be on
September 26, 2006 and will focus on the
transportation needs of older adults. The
conference will be jointly sponsored by
NYMTC, AARP, MTA and NYU Wagner Rudin
Center for Transportation Policy &
Management. One of the panels at the con-
ference will explore what is currently being
done to address the transportation needs of
older adults in the New York area as well as
across the nation. What types of services
have worked, what types have not and why?
Are there models that could work in the New
York area? The four examples discussed above, in
which we have borrowed from other
regions, illustrate how important it is to
know what is going on so we can all learn
from each other. C OUNCIL ON T RANSPORTATION Representing major private and
nonprofit sector organizations, the
Council on Transportation is a
bipartisan group created by the
Rudin Center, committed to
improving transportation in the
downstate New York region,
especially in New York City. The
Council acts as an Advisory Board to
the Rudin Center. Steve Greenfield, Chairman Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff,
Vice Chairman Elliot Sander, Executive
Director Richard Anderson
Regina Armstrong
Kevin Corbett
Allison C. de Cerreño
John Dionisio
Beverly Dolinsky
John Falcocchio
Alan Friedberg
William Galligan
Mark Gorton
Gregory Hodkinson
José Holguín-Veras
Mike Horodniceanu
Arthur Imperatore, Jr.
Brian Ketcham
Carolyn Konheim
Francis McArdle
James Melius
Mitchell Moss
Robert Paaswell
Henry Peyrebrune
Steven Polan
Richard Ravitch
Lucius Riccio
William Rudin
Gene Russianoff
Janette Sadik-Khan
Ross Sandler
Bruce Schaller
Samuel Schwartz
Dom Servedio
Roy Sparrow
Marilyn Taylor
Ben Thompson
Chris Ward
Ed Watt
Roberta Weisbrod
Michael Weiss
Robert Yaro
Rae Zimmerman
Jeff Zupan seek to age in place. A family of trans-
portation services allows for individuals to
find the best fit for their unique circum-
stances and abilities. With mobility options
across a range of modes, older persons
have the opportunity to get to destinations
that enhance both their physical and social
well-being. Making communities more livable through
transportation improvements is a principal
means of helping people to live better.
There are a host of other policies that
AARP is pursuing concurrently, and we will
continue to comment on trends/decisions
in the policymaking process. Our attention
to the mobility dimension of community
building reflects a core belief — that we
should engage public officials and assorted
stakeholders through established channels
for citizen participation. By focusing on
mobility policies and programs that sup-
port successful aging, we seek to move
beyond “living behind the geraniums.” It is
an approach that will enrich the entire
community as civic design is improved and
social connections are strengthened. NYU • R obert F .
W agner School of Public Service 295 Lafayette Street, 2 nd Floor New Y ork, NY 10012 NON PROFIT ORG. U.S. POST AGE PA I
D NEW YORK, NY PERMIT NO. 7931 16 (Continued on page 14) L EARNING FROM O THER R EGIONS : T HE I MPORTANCE OF B EST P RACTICES B Y J O E L E T T I N G E R , G E R RY B O G A C Z , A L A N B O R E N S T E I N , A N D K U O - A N N C H I A O Successful regional planning is an enormous
challenge, especially in a large, complex
region like the New York City metropolitan
area. Spread across three states — New York,
New Jersey and Connecticut — and home to
more than 18 million residents, the region’s
size, political complexity and the diversity of
its constituent communities all conspire to
test even the most thoughtful approaches to
planning on a regional scale. It is a region
where there are more governmental jurisdic-
tions per square mile than perhaps anywhere
else in the world. Despite its size and complexity, the New York
City metropolitan area can learn much from
other regions across the country. Recent
experiences of the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (NYMTC), the metro-
politan planning organization (MPO) for New
York City, Long Island and the lower Hudson
Valley, provide an illustration of how best
practices from around the country can be
brought to bear on regional issues and solu-
tions. NYMTC is comprised of the City of New York, five suburban counties and state and
federal agencies and regional authorities.
NYMTC has the daunting task of providing its
members with a collaborative regional trans-
portation planning forum in which to meet
federal planning requirements to receive fed-
eral transportation funding. NYMTC’s recent innovations rely in many
cases on lessons learned from other regions
and agencies across the nation. To further see
what is out there, NYMTC recently joined the
National Association of Regional Councils
(NARC) and the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), and is
becoming more active in the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO).
The goal of this increased participation with Joel Ettinger is Executive
Director, Gerry Bogacz is Director
of Planning, Alan Borenstein is
Deputy Director, and Kuo-Ann
Chiao is Technical Group Director
of the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (NYMTC). NYMTC employees from left to right: Sangeeta Bhowmick, Gerry Bogacz, Stephanie Ceballos, Joel Ettinger, Munnesh Patel, Alan Borenstein, Ali Mohseni, and Kuo-Ann Chiao Courtesy of NYMTC

Comments