Transportation Committee
RECORD OF MEETING
WORKING GROUP B
DATE/TIME/PLACE:
ATTENDANCE:
DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
Sections
I.A., I.B., II.A., II.B. and
II.C. of the Working Group B report were distributed
to Working Group members prior to the meeting. A lively discussion followed:
ITS:
¨ ITS does not lend itself
easily to a 30 year look. The numbers in
the report really represent a short term plan, for 5 to 10 years. To get at a realistic estimate, it was
suggested that the numbers in the draft be multiplied by a factor of six to
represent a 30 year plan or that the total cost of the ITS components
programmed in the TIP should be multiplied by six.
¨ One future ITS need not
described in the report deals with relocating the TMC. This cost needs to be built in.
¨ Another ITS
expansion need could be expanding the TRANSMIT program to arterials, and
expanding the coverage of the HELP vans north to
¨ Electronic interface with
the counties for 911 calls needs to be established. This should be added into the budget.
¨ ITS should not be touted as the remedy
for congestion. The report needs to
specify that while ITS helps manage congestion, it should not be implied that ITS
technology is the total remedy.
ITS
Priority Network:
¨ It was suggested that
System
Costs:
¨ It was suggested that the
¨ Thruway costs provided do
not incorporate the general cost of maintaining the system.
¨ It was suggested that the
cost estimates be put in context with comparable figures from the TIP and the
previous New Visions Plan.
MIST
Data:
¨ Working Group members
expressed concern that the findings of the MIST analysis do not “jump out” to
the reader. Group members recommended
that the Planning Time Index be explained in layman’s terms (perhaps with the
George and Jane scenario from the 2021 plan) and asked for an expanded
discussion on implications.
Other:
¨ Working Group members
expressed concern that the report wording was too technical for the average
reader and asked staff to revise the text where feasible. CDTC staff mentioned that an executive
summary will be drafted, and this 3-4 page summary will “pull the report
together” and bring forth salient findings of the work. Toward that end, Working Group members will
be asked to identify five to ten conclusions that they gleaned out of the
report.
ACTION ITEMS:
·
·
· CDTC staff will provide a complete,
integrated draft report to Working Group members for their review.
· Working group B Members will provide a list of five
to ten conclusions that they drew from the report.