[1] Maintain Good infrastructure conditions
Maintain the region's highways, bridges, and transit system in a state of
good repair. Focus the public's
investment on identified important interconnected facilities.
Expected Benefits
Maintaining the tremendous public investment that has been made in
transportation infrastructure is the smart thing to do. Not a lot of new roads are being built;
therefore existing facilities must be preserved and enhanced. A performance-based management strategy
paints bridges before they corrode, builds long-lasting pavements, and matches
design treatment to road function (not necessarily ownership or funding
category). This provides baseline
support to the regional economy.
The identification of priority networks makes the most efficient and
effective use of available resources.
The largest impact will be seen by directing funding to the functionally
most significant part of the transportation system.
Implications
Infrastructure projects have long been the priority for CDTC and
NYSDOT. Strides in overall pavement and
bridge condition have been made in the past decade. The continuing need to devote upwards of 70% of CDTC's TIP
resources to infrastructure renewal has major budgetary consequences. Embracing a risk assessment approach to
designing infrastructure projects will result in less building of reserve
capacity that may or may not be needed in the future. This trade-off frees resources to address current needs in other areas.
Increased funding would be required to fully implement all New Visions recommendations. However, this strategy provides helpful
guidance in constrained budget times, as well, by focusing certain types of
improvements on specific systems.
Actions
1) Make the Capital District transportation system safer.
"Travel inevitably places us
at some risk. Given the high economic,
social, and personal costs of crashes and other incidents, safety must be
government's highest priority in transportation."[1]
Safety will receive continued and heightened attention during
infrastructure renewal through supplemental safety projects, and in conjunction
with other actions in the Capital District.
Safety considerations will go beyond the traditional focus on reducing
crashes and high-accident locations on state highways. Providing highly visible crosswalks at busy
intersections, sidewalk snow removal so people can get to bus stops, using
bicycle-safe drainage grates, and reducing the number of driveway cuts also
reduce the risk of traffic-related injury and death. They are part of the safety emphasis of the New Visions plan. To
achieve stated goals of reducing the annual cost of crashes (accidents), the
plan also counts on progress by manufacturers in improving safety features in
vehicles.
This action also assumes steady progress in development of a Bridge
Management System for all bridges, and steady progress through capital and
operating budget commitments to significantly reduce physical deficiencies on
both state and non-state bridges.
2) Continue adequate highway and bridge maintenance efforts.
Highway and bridge maintenance and operations is
the single largest commitment of transportation resources in the Capital
Region. Essential services, such as
snow removal and pothole patching are captured in this category. Significantly, this area is out of the direct
purview of CDTC's decision-making.
However, successful implementation of New Visions will require continued commitment to current levels of
expenditures for maintenance, as well and increased efficiencies resulting from
intergovernmental coordination, consolidation, and joint purchasing. These assumed efficiencies permit improved
service over the long run, such as more frequent shoulder sweeping on bike
routes.
3) Carry out an effective highway and bridge rehabilitation and reconstruction program.
Existing
highway and bridge conditions and condition goals recommended by the
Infrastructure task force are summarized in the following tables.
Table 5:
Pavement Condition Goals
|
|
|
1994 |
Goal |
|
||||||||
|
Highway Group |
Lane-Miles |
% Poor |
% Fair |
% Poor |
% Fair |
|
||||||
|
Interstates |
554 |
5% |
24% |
0% |
20% |
||||||
|
Non-Interstate
NHS Roads |
272 |
12% |
12% |
5% |
20% |
||||||
|
Non-NHS Principal
Arterials |
679 |
15% |
24% |
10% |
20% |
||||||
|
Other Federal-Aid
Roads |
2534 |
17% |
22% |
15% |
20% |
||||||
|
Local
(non-Federal-Aid) Roads |
9442 |
9% |
22% |
<=15% |
20% |
||||||
Table 6: Bridge Conditions and Goals
|
1995 |
Goal |
|||
|
Bridges |
% Deficient |
Rated< 3.0 |
% Deficient |
Rated< 3.0 |
|
State |
38% |
1% |
20% |
0% |
|
Non-State |
42% |
1% |
20% |
0% |
An effective highway and bridge rehabilitation program is one that is
adequately funded and uses life-cycle considerations and system management
techniques to prolong good conditions and maximize the return on
investment. Using existing revenues
more effectively in this manner must proceed raising additional transportation
revenues. This action calls for
continued resurfacing and reconstruction of state highways at a schedule
consistent with the State's Pavement Management System, using the type of
repair called for in its and CDTC's pavement models. This action also calls for treatment of higher-volume,
higher-function non-state roads with a similar repair and reconstruction
approach. Currently, such work on
non-state roads is rare. While pavement
condition alone can be maintained on these non-state roads using lower scale
repair treatments, the importance of these roads warrants more significant work
to produce a longer repair life, safer operations, and other benefits. Continuing current local (non-state) repair
practice on other local roads appears to meet pavement goals.
The use of recycled materials in pavement
renewal is encouraged by TEA-21. NYSDOT and local highway agencies should use
recycled materials wherever possible to minimize the environmental impact of
the transportation system, the need for new gravel mines, and construction
debris disposal. The substitution of
glass, rubber (old tires) and even paper sludge in road base materials has been
tested elsewhere, and the Capital Region should be in forefront of those using
these innovative materials.
4) Maintain transit equipment and facilities in a state of good repair.
Federal, state and local financing over the past
25 years has allowed the Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) and
publicly-sponsored bus operations (such as Upstate Transit) to maintain
equipment and facilities in a state of good repair. CDTA replaced vehicles on nearly a twelve-year cycle and updated
garage facilities when needed. Clean,
reliable, modern buses are required to provide dependable service, keep
operating costs under control and offer an attractive product in the
competitive market place. The
transportation system will not be well served by equipment that suffers from
deferred maintenance and lack of capital investment.
This action requires continued emphasis on effective maintenance
practices, an adequate supply of spare vehicles, and a reasonable replacement
schedule. A reasonable replacement
schedule can be defined as either continuing past practice (routine maintenance
combined with a twelve-year replacement cycle) or increasing maintenance and
rehabilitation efforts to allow for an extension of replacement cycles. Both CDTA and private transit operations
require fleets in good repair.
Most CDTA full-sized buses have been replaced recently with cleaner,
low-floor buses. Vehicles will be
replaced over coming years with even cleaner "Clean Air" vehicles --
diesels which have significantly reduced emissions from previous vehicles or
perhaps even hybrid electric vehicles.
CDTA will examine experiences and acquire technology that is appropriate
based on:
·
Air quality needs
of the Capital District and beyond;
·
Purchase price,
reliability and operating costs; and
·
Opportunities for
economies of scale in purchasing (in conjunction with other New York transit properties
or public/private partnerships).
Vehicle replacement has permitted a steady increase in coming years in
the percentage of the fleet and the percentage of transit service that is fully
accessible to the disabled community to nearly 100%. CDTA has pioneered the use of low floor fixed route buses to
accomplish its accessibility commitment.
Private operators are encouraged to work with CDTA and the New York State
Department of Transportation to understand and select an appropriate clean air
technology for vehicle replacement.
5) Embrace a "risk assessment" approach for capacity considerations in infrastructure project design.
Rather than routinely designing bridge structures and roads to meet
traffic projections of 25 or 35 years in the future, a risk assessment approach
examines the costs and benefits of alternative designs and makes capacity
treatment an explicit choice. A risk
assessment approach to bridge reconstruction asks questions like:
·
Do 20-year traffic
projections justify widening the bridge now?
·
Do 30 or 40-year
projections?
·
What is the
projected congestion risk of replacement in-kind?
·
How much does it
cost to widen it now?
·
How much more will
it cost to widen the bridge at different points in the future?
·
Are the future capacity
constraints on this bridge of a higher priority than addressing existing
current congestion elsewhere in the region?
·
Can the future
capacity concerns be directly linked with private developments, so private
sector funding, such as mitigation fees, are the more appropriate fund source?
While the
concept of such analysis is slowly taking hold within the project development
arean, the Travel Task Force has identified the need for further work on
procedures to implement this action as a high priority for CDTC in the 2021
plan.
6) Establish priority treatment networks for improvements beyond basic infrastructure renewal.
Specific networks of facilities receive special treatment in this
prioritization approach. Improvements
are then made as part of necessary renewal work. New Visions task forces
identified preliminary "priority treatment" networks for transit,
bicycles and pedestrians, goods movement, intelligent transportation systems,
and arterial corridor management.
Further refinement, mapping and review by affected parties are required
before these networks can be formally specified by CDTC.
The
identification of priority networks does not imply that improvements off the
defined networks are not warranted or desirable. For example, bicycle or pedestrian accommodation in a given
corridor can often be provided more safely and/or cost-effectively on parallel
facilities, rather than on the shoulder of a busy state highway. Flexibility is required in interpretation,
so long as the basic message -- these
are important facilities -- is not lost.
The Budget chapter uses task force-identified priority networks --
regardless of the jurisdictional ownership of the roads -- in developing cost
estimates and resource requirements.
The full implementation budget is sufficient to allow construction of
AASHTO standard facilities on the entire state system of roads with increasing
sensitivity to issues beyond moving cars.
It also allows significant upgrades to the non-state road system
reflecting half of the federal-aid road network.
The New Visions task forces
identified the following preliminary priority networks.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Network
A bicycle and pedestrian priority treatment network provides a
"backbone" for a region-wide bicycle and pedestrian travel
system. The ±355 mile network contains those facilities which have
high existing or potential bicycle and pedestrian travel but also present many barriers, including high traffic
volumes/speeds, limited pavement space and busy or confusing traffic
patterns. These facilities connect
major activity centers, are accessible to residential areas via local roads,
and have few practical alternatives nearby.
The facilities included in the network are listed in the Making the Capital District More Bicycle-
and Pedestrian-Friendly: A Toolbox and Game Plan technical report.
Over time, CDTC and local municipalities will designate Priority Network
facilities as "bike routes".
Appropriate signage will identify such routes. These facilities will be improved to Group B/C cyclist standards
as set forth in the FHWA Selecting
Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles report. Routine maintenance, such as shoulder
sweeping, will be increased. Sidewalks,
crosswalks and pedestrian phases at traffic signals will be added or
improved. A "where to ride"
map of the Network will be developed and widely distributed.
Arterial Management Priority Network
The New Visions report entitled Land Use/Traffic Conflict Inventory and
Measurement contains level of compatibility ratings for over 275 roads
covering nearly 850 miles of Capital District roadway. The access management priority network is
defined as:
·
Those road segments
that show a high degree of conflict between commercial or residential land use
and traffic, resulting in "poor" compatibility (Level of
Compatibility D, E or F); and
·
Additional road
segments where either the potential for commercial development or intrusion of
vehicle traffic through residential corridors is high, or significant
deterioration in arterial corridor function is forecast to occur by 2015.
This priority network tentatively includes about 220 miles of
roadway. The network is predominantly
composed of state highways in suburban towns.
Goods Movement Priority Network
The proposed
priority road network for goods movement in the Capital District includes:
·
The National
Highway System, including intermodal connectors (approximately 826 lane-miles);
and
·
State Highways that
currently carry more than 10% trucks in the traffic flow (approximately 150
centerline miles).
Locations on the priority truck network where load limits, clearance
restrictions, turning radii, and narrow lanes impact goods movement are
documented in Goods Movement in the
Capital District: A Performance Report, a New Visions technical report.
The cycle of infrastructure repair on these routes will systematically
remove these barriers to goods movement.
This should be done regardless of any changes in jurisdiction or other
policy choices made in the context of overall infrastructure renewal. The priority truck network should be built
to AASHTO standards (14-foot minimum clearance, 16.5 feet on the Strategic
Military Network) regardless of ownership.
Resource requirements are the baseline assumptions for infrastructure
repair. If this baseline were reduced,
the priority truck network would require special attention.
Transit Priority Network
Traditionally-strong
transit corridors such as NY 5, NY 32, US 20, US 4, and downtowns and
potentially-strong corridors such as NY 7, US 9, NY 155 and Wolf Road represent
priorities for improvements to transit amenities. Transit amenities include bus stops, pull outs, and park and ride
facilities. However, the single most
important action to improve transit accessibility is a significant increase in
sidewalk and crosswalk provision and maintenance throughout the region.
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Network
The
Expressway Management Task Force identified a network of expressway and
arterial facilities as the platform for the regional ITS. There should be centrally coordinated
traffic control and/or guidance along these facilities. The logic is that advising travelers of preferable
alternatives before they enter the
most congested areas and facilitating smooth flows along the alternatives can
keep overall traffic conditions from worsening. The regional ITS network contains:
·
priority
expressways;
·
arterials
representing their immediate alternatives (ordinarily either parallel to or
connecting the expressways);
·
their secondary
alternatives (which entail more surface street travel); and
·
other arterials
that are strategically important because they are spurs of the priority
arterials and/or carry traffic across major travel gateways.
A county-by-county listing of this over 250 centerline mile network is included
in the Expressway Management Task Force
Technical Report.
7) Adopt an access management policy for the arterial priority network.
Major roadways, including all of the region's surface arterials and
certain strategic collectors serve both as the primary network for moving
people and goods and the focus for commercial and residential development. If access to arterial roadways is not
properly designed, these roads can't accommodate development and retain their primary transportation
function. Good access management is the
single most effective element in improving safety and preserving arterial
capacity. An access management policy,
adopted by CDTC and endorsed by its members, will help ensure that new and
existing curb cuts meet appropriate standards.
Such a policy would have four components:
1. Reinforce
Street Hierarchy: Access to property should reinforce the roadway hierarchy
in order to maintain traffic flow, preserve roadway capacity, and enhance
safety. As a rule, access to property
should be from local streets or collector roads and not from the arterial
itself. Traffic should flow to and from
the arterial over collector roads and enter/exit the arterial at controlled intersections.
2. Guidelines
for Driveway Spacing on Commercial Corridors: Driveway spacing standards
limit the number of curb cuts on a roadway by stating minimum desirable
distance between driveways. Proper
spacing helps reduce collisions, encourages sharing of access for smaller
parcels, and improves community character by discouraging haphazard placement
of driveways along corridors.
Establishing acceptable commercial driveway
spacing guidelines on the regional level will require more dialogue with NYSDOT,
local government, and affected stakeholders.
A strict traffic operations approach may support spacing requirements of
500 feet or more based on narrow consideration of merging and weaving
distances, stopping sight distances, acceleration rates, and storage distance
for opposing left turns. However, such
spacing may be unacceptable for economic development in some suburban
environments where development pressures advocate 100 to 200 foot spacing.
The New
Visions Arterial Corridor Management task force recommends that
environmental setting and highway design be used in conjunction with roadway
speed and volume to determine desired driveway spacing. Guidelines to begin the discussion are
included in the New Visions Technical
Report, Development of an Arterial
Corridor Management Strategy for the Capital District: Planning Report. The task force suggests that a reasonable
balance between traffic engineering criteria and economic development demands
can be achieved.
3. Signal
Spacing Guidelines: Preserving the quality of traffic flow and safety along
public streets requires spacing of traffic signals that assures continuous,
progressive movement. This normally
entails relatively uniform spacing of signals at sufficient distances to travel
at reasonable speeds. Spacing
guidelines for signalized intersections have been drafted. These guidelines should become part of
further policy development.
4. Residential
Street Standards: The intrusion of heavy traffic into residential
neighborhoods impacts regional quality of life. Using objective criteria developed from CDTC's highway system
review and current research, planning guidelines have been suggested for
further discussion.
Examples of the kinds of design treatments that
would help achieve the driveway and signal spacing standards described above
include but are not limited to:
·
Regulate the
maximum number of driveways per property.
·
Increase property
frontage along major roadways.
·
Provide
opportunities for shared access with adjacent developments.
·
Encourage access
between developments across parking lots.
·
Require adequate
internal design and circulation plans in addition to a traffic study for system
impacts.
·
Consolidate
existing access whenever separate parcels are assembled under one development
plan.
·
Locate driveways
away from the functional area of intersections.
·
Allow access to
arterials only if a traffic study shows it is necessary or beneficial to
overall traffic circulation.
Minimizing the number of driveways and traffic
signals decreases traffic conflicts and preserves the traffic-carrying capacity
of the region's arterial streets.
Equally important is the maintenance/improvement of the living
environment and visual character of the region's older residential arterials.
Incremental costs attendant to accommodating
driveway and signal spacing, constructing local roads to complement the
arterial street system, and fostering well-designed circulation systems are
minimal if addressed during the development process. Some costs to the business community will be offset by additional
development opportunities created by increased land and transportation
efficiency. Retrofitting existing
developed corridors will be more difficult and costly, but can be accomplished either
in conjunction with site redevelopment or as part of routine public highway
reconstruction projects.
8) Explore changes in road ownership as a way to better align infrastructure funding with function.
Jurisdiction can be a major obstacle to effective transportation systems. The state, counties, cities, towns and
villages own roads. Transit, the Port
of Albany, regional airports and freight rail systems operate separately from
road systems. Funding available for
maintenance, operation and capital improvement varies widely by community and
level of government. Decision processes
and design standards for highway design and traffic signal systems also vary
widely. Currently, funds for highway
infrastructure repair are structured primarily according to jurisdiction
(ownership of the road). However, the
travelling public doesn't care who owns the road. Road condition and the quality of service provided are what
matters.
Actions related to infrastructure renewal and to improvements on a
priority network heighten the issue of jurisdiction. If significant repairs and design upgrades are pursued on higher
function roads, it is reasonable to explore options to fund the most effective
way of carrying out this work.
One
approach to aligning funding with road function is to orchestrate a region-wide
ownership swap. Higher-function non-state roads would be transferred to state
jurisdiction, and lower-function state roads to local jurisdiction. Guidelines for such transfers could be
developed, taking into account functional classification, volume of traffic and
equity considerations. Complete
consistency would require transfer of major arterials within the cities to
state ownership. Legislation may be required
to enable such widespread jurisdictional changes.
A concept that was raised during the New
Visions process was the transfer of ownership of regionally significant
facilities to a regional authority.
This option is the logical extension of "regionalization"
efforts -- find an existing regional authority or create a new one with
jurisdiction over at least all higher function facilities. In the long term, this approach may be
worthy of further study, particularly in conjunction with congestion pricing
studies. However, the experience of the
State Commission on the Capital Region indicates that there is very little
public support for regional service delivery of this type at this time.