Table 1 presents 1990 and 2000 values and future
results of the original New Visions trends in a summary fashion. This impact summary is presented in terms of
change from 1990 and is based on CDTC
and CDRPC's mid-1990's forecasts of stable employment, modest population
growth, and further suburbanization of development. Continuing increases in travel demand were forecast, but at a
slower rate of growth than in the 1980's.
The challenge that the goals present can be seen by the performance
forecasts of future conditions contained in Table 1. Without a
high degree of success in implementing the New
Visions plan most performance indicators were "headed south" in
coming years.
Year-2015 and 2021 conditions would be
even worse than shown Table 1 if previous commitments are not carried out. Overall, even with the previous commitments, the performance of the Capital
District's transportation would decline if the demographic, land use and travel
behavior forecasts proved correct. This
is most dramatic for congestion, but equally alarming in terms of resource
requirements and land use impacts.
Ever-increasing travel would be difficult to absorb in the existing
transportation system without loss of options and loss of mobility. This is true although the CDRPC forecasts
indicate relatively modest population and employment growth. The impacts of the transportation system
decline would be harder to ignore -- they would impact daily lives, budgets,
economic vitality and quality of life.
Should
the Capital District not be able to maintain a stable economy, future
conditions would be much different.
Vitality and quality of life in urban areas would substantially decline
while suburban congestion and land consumption measures will still likely be
worse than in 1990. This very
undesirable future underscores the need for CDTC's transportation plan and
related public and private policy to invest in ways that support a healthy
economy and community vitality throughout the region.
A
more detailed explanation of the original assumptions and data sources used in
estimating performance measures appears in the New Visions Workbook Technical Appendix, available on request.
Table
1:
System Performance Measures -- Summary of
Existing and Trend Conditions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Qualitative |
|
Year 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015 Trend |
Summary |
2021 Trend |
New Visions |
|
Selected Core
Measures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1990 |
1996 |
2000 |
Growth |
2015 Trend |
Growth |
Full Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conditions |
Conditions |
Conditions |
Conditions |
Impacts |
Conditions |
Implementation |
|
Transportation
Service |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACCESS |
Percent of PM
Peak Hour Trips Transit Accessible |
|
|
|
|
18.60% |
na |
na |
15.20% |
rr |
na |
na |
* |
||
|
Percent of PM
Peak Hour Trips With Transit Advantage |
|
|
|
|
0.40% |
na |
na |
0.33% |
rr |
na |
na |
* |
||
|
Percent of PM
Peak Hour Trips Accessible by Bicycle |
|
|
|
|
28.9% (1995) |
na |
na |
26.4% |
r |
na |
na |
* |
||
ACCESSIBILITY |
Travel Time
between Representative Locations; |
|
|
|
|
59 |
64 |
69 |
78 |
rrr |
83 |
73 |
|
||
|
see Appendix; Sample Time: Selkirk
Yards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
to Saratoga Springs (minutes, PM Peak) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
||
CONGESTION |
Daily Recurring
Excess Person Hours of Delay |
|
|
|
|
6,546 |
16,999 |
26,344 |
34,298 |
rrrr |
52,354 |
22,870 |
* |
||
|
Excess Person
Hours of Peak Hour Delay Per PMT |
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
2.4 |
3.2 |
4.0 |
rrrr |
5.4 |
2.9 |
* |
||
|
Daily Excess
Vehicle Hours of Delay by Truck |
|
|
|
|
125 |
357 |
553 |
732 |
rrrr |
1,099 |
480 |
* |
||
FLEXIBILITY |
Reserve Capacity
on the Urban Expressway and Arterial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
System (PM Peak Hour Vehicle Miles
of Capacity) |
|
|
|
|
855,008 |
772,039 |
696,552 |
628,781 |
rrr |
594,146 |
712,453 |
* |
||
Resource
Requirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SAFETY |
Estimated Annual
Societal Cost of Transportation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Accidents,
Millions of Dollars ($M) |
|
|
|
|
$510 |
$685 |
$810 |
$1,053 |
rrrr |
$1,179 |
$874 |
* |
ENERGY |
Daily Fuel
Consumption (thousands of gallons) |
|
|
|
|
880 |
na |
na |
1080 |
rrr |
na |
na |
* |
||
ECONOMIC |
Annual Vehicle
Ownership and Operating Costs for |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
COST |
Autos and Trucks, Millions of Dollars
($M) |
|
|
|
|
$696 |
$815 |
$901 |
$1,066 |
rrrr |
$1,129 |
$951 |
* |
||
|
Other Monetary
Costs of Transport: Highway and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Transit Facilities and Service, Parking
Facilities, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Environmental Damage, Millions of Dollars
($M) |
|
|
|
|
$779 M |
na |
na |
$1,020 M |
rrr |
na |
na |
* |
||
External
Effects |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AIR QUALITY |
Daily
Hydrocarbon (HC) Emissions (kg) |
|
|
|
|
47,632 |
40,840 |
na |
18,002 |
aaaa |
na |
na |
* |
||
|
Daily Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx) Emissions (kg) |
|
|
|
|
53,661 |
46,023 |
na |
30,846 |
aaa |
na |
na |
* |
||
LAND USE |
Residential Use
Traffic Conflict: Miles at LOC "E" or "F" |
|
|
|
|
82.4 |
na |
na |
126.0 |
rrrr |
na |
na |
* |
||
|
Arterial Land
Access Conflict: Miles at LOC "E" or "F" |
|
|
|
|
29.9 |
na |
na |
49.5 |
rrrr |
na |
na |
* |
||
|
Dislocation of
Existing Residences and Businesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
r |
29 |
29 |
* |
||
|
Community
Quality of Life- Factors that reflect
|
|
|
|
|
Trends include
warning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
community
quality of life in the central cities, |
|
|
|
|
signals. Proactive strategies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
inner suburbs,
outer suburbs, small cities and |
|
|
|
|
will be required
to impact |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
villages, and
rural areas. |
|
|
|
|
trends. |
|
|
|
r |
|
|
|
||
ENVIRONMENTAL |
Number of Major
Environmental Issues to be |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Resolved to Implement Existing
Commitments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
r |
21 |
21 |
* |
|
ECONOMIC |
How does the
transportation system support the |
|
|
|
|
Transportation
makes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
economic health of the region? |
|
|
|
|
possible much of
the |
|
|
|
r |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
region's
economic activity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aaaa |
Positive impact
greater than 50%, 2015 relative to 1990. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
aaa |
Positive impact
between 20% and 50%. |
|
|
|
|
|
6. |
Trips are considered to have
a transit advantage if they can |
|
|
|
||||
aa |
Positive impact
between 10 and 20%. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
be made faster by transit
than by auto (door to door). |
|
|
|
||||
a |
Positive impact
less than 10% or not quantified. |
|
|
|
|
|
7. |
Trips are considered to be
accessible by bicycle if they are |
|
|
|
||||
|
Negligible
impact expected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
within a reasonable distance
by routes that can be travelled |
|
|
|
||||
r |
Negative impact
less than 10% or not quantified. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bicycle. |
|
|
|
|
|
||
rr |
Negative impact
between 10 and 20%. |
|
|
|
|
|
8. |
Hydrocarbon and Nitrogen
Oxide emissions are derived from |
|
|
|
||||
rrr |
Negative impact
between 20 and 50%. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the MOBILE5A emissions model
based on levels of vehicle |
|
|
|
||||
rrrr |
Negative impact
greater than 50%, 2015 relative to 1990. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
travel, speed and
congestion. |
|
|
|
|
|||
* |
Indicates impact
has been quantified. |
|
|
|
|
|
9. |
Residential Traffic
Conflict: Miles at Level of |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compatibility (LOC)
"E" or "F" refers to the number of miles |
|
|
|
||
Notes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of major arterials with this
rating. The LOC index was |
|
|
|
||
1. |
Trend growth conditions
correspond to trend traffic growth and |
|
|
|
|
|
developed based on an
inventory of residential driveways on |
|
|
|
|||||
|
only partial implementation
of the New Visions plan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
major arterials and traffic
volumes. LOC "E"
or"F" ratings |
|
|
|
||||
2. |
Recurring delay refers to
delay experienced under normal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
occur at arterial segments
with frequent residential |
|
|
|
||||
|
traffic conditions, without
incidents or unusual weather |
|
|
|
|
|
|
driveways and higher traffic
volumes. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
conditions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. |
Arterial Land Access
Conflict: Miles at Level of |
|
|
|
|||
3. |
Non-recurring delay refers
to delay that results from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compatibility (LOC)
"E" or "F" refers to the number of miles |
|
|
|
||||
|
incidents, weather
conditions, or special events. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
of major arterials with this
rating. The LOC index was |
|
|
|
||||
4. |
Excess delay refers to the
amount of delay that occurs at |
|
|
|
|
|
|
developed based on an
inventory of commercial driveways on |
|
|
|
||||
|
level of service
"E" or "F". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
major arterials and traffic
volumes. LOC "E"
or"F" ratings |
|
|
|
||||
5. |
Trips are considered transit
accessible if the trip can be |
|
|
|
|
|
|
occur at arterial segments
with frequent commercial |
|
|
|
||||
|
made in a reasonable time,
relative to the auto travel time |
|
|
|
|
|
|
driveways and higher traffic
volumes. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
(door to door). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|