nymtc regional freight plan - New York Metropolitan Transportation ...

NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL 

NYMTC REGIONAL FREIGHT PLAN 

AN ELEMENT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 

FINAL 

JUNE 2004

DISCLAIMER: Preparation of this report was funded by the Federal 

Highway and Federal Transit Administrations of the United States 

Department of Transportation and the New York State Department 

of Transportation. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official 

views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit 

Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification 

or regulation.

A Freight Plan for the NYMTC Region 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... ES-1 

Project Purpose, Goals, and Objectives ....................................................................... ES-1 

Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... ES-2 

Process.............................................................................................................................. ES-4 

Recommendations .......................................................................................................... ES-5 

Financing ......................................................................................................................... ES-12 

Organization of Report .................................................................................................. ES-13 

1.0 NYMTC’s Freight Plan: A Roadmap to a 21 st Century Freight System.............. 1-1 

2.0 Freight Transportation in the NYMTC Region Today and in the Future........... 2-1 

2.1 Existing and Forecast Conditions ........................................................................ 2-1 

2.2 Challenges Identified during the Plan ................................................................ 2-7 

2.3 Specific Conditions Identified through the Plan Effort .................................... 2-9 

3.0 Potential Strategies and How They Were Evaluated.............................................. 3-1 

4.0 Relationship among Performance Measures and Deficiencies 

and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 4-1 

5.0 Strategies of the Regional Freight Plan..................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Goal #1 – Improve the Transportation of Freight by Removing 

Burdensome Government Regulations and Restrictions ................................. 5-8 

5.2 Goal #2 – Improve the Physical Infrastructure of the Transportation System 

for Freight-Related Transport between Shipping and Receiving Points........ 5-19 

5.3 Goal #3 – Improve the Reliability and Overall Movement of Freight in the 

Region by Encouraging Expedient and Multimodal Shipment of Freight .... 5-24 

5.4 Goal #4 – Improve the Reliability and Overall Movement of Freight in the 

Region by Expanding Alternatives for Trucks and Other Vehicles................ 5-36 

6.0 Regional Transportation System Impacts................................................................. 6-1 

6.1 Changes in Regional VMT and VHT................................................................... 6-1 

6.2 System User and Societal Benefits ....................................................................... 6-9 

6.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 6-10 

7.0 Financing......................................................................................................................... 7-1 

7.1 Financial Needs ...................................................................................................... 7-1 

7.2 Issues Relating to Finance..................................................................................... 7-2 

7.3 Summary of Funding Sources .............................................................................. 7-4 

7.4 Recommendations.................................................................................................. 7-8 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

7018.008 

i


List of Figures 

2.1 Freight Growth in the NYMTC Region 

(Base and Forecasted Flows by County) ..................................................................... 2-2 

2.2 National Freight Growth Forecast ............................................................................... 2-2 

2.3 Freight Growth in the NYMTC Region 

(Changes in Regional Mode Split – 1998 to 2025) ...................................................... 2-4 

2.4 Freight Mode Share Nationally .................................................................................... 2-5 

2.5 Freight Growth in the NYMTC Region, 1998-2025 

(Base and Forecasted Flows by Commodity) ............................................................. 2-5 

2.6 Annual Tons of Freight Arriving in the NYMTC Region (By Origin) .................... 2-6 

2.7 Annual Tons of Freight Leaving in the NYMTC Region (By Destination) ............ 2-6 

2.8 National Highway Freight Network ........................................................................... 2-10 

2.9 Trucking Challenge........................................................................................................ 2-10 

2.10 Congested Highways Nationally (2000) ..................................................................... 2-11 

2.11 Congested Highways Nationally (2020) ..................................................................... 2-11 

2.12 East of Hudson Freight Transportation Infrastructure ............................................. 2-12 

2.13 Limited Truck Access to Airports ................................................................................ 2-13 

2.14 Passenger Train Density ................................................................................................ 2-15 

2.15 Rail Equipment is Becoming Taller and Heavier....................................................... 2-15 

2.16 Regional Map of Tallest Allowable Car Types by Line............................................. 2-16 

2.17 National Rail Freight Network ..................................................................................... 2-16 

2.18 Railroad Capital Spending ............................................................................................ 2-17 

2.19 Major Arterial Network................................................................................................. 2-18 


iii


List of Figures 

(continued) 

3.1 Study Process .................................................................................................................. 3-1 

3.2 Regional Freight Plan Approach .................................................................................. 3-2 

3.3 Corridors Analyzed by Trip Purpose .......................................................................... 3-4 

3.4. Regional Highway Corridors........................................................................................ 3-5 

3.5 Regional Rail Corridors ................................................................................................. 3-6 

5.1 Fifty-Three-Foot Tractor-Trailer Routes...................................................................... 5-10 

5.2 NYCDOT Midtown Commercial Vehicle Parking Program.................................... 5-12 

5.3 Regional Toll Facilities................................................................................................... 5-17 

5.4 Staten Island Railroad Proposed Improvements ....................................................... 5-23 

5.5 East-of-Hudson Rail Freight Barriers .......................................................................... 5-26 

5.6 Potential Freight Villages .............................................................................................. 5-31 

5.7 Proposed Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel ...................................................................... 5-34 

5.8 Highbridge Interchange Proposed Improvements.................................................... 5-39 

5.9 Cross Bronx Expressway Improvements .................................................................... 5-40 

5.10 Staten Island Expressway Proposed Improvements ................................................. 5-43 

5.11 Gowanus Expressway.................................................................................................... 5-46 

5.12 Brooklyn Queens Expressway Clearance Restrictions.............................................. 5-48 

5.13 JFK Airport/Industrial Access Corridors ................................................................... 5-50 

7.1 Projected RTP Financial Analysis (2000-2025)............................................................ 7-2 


iv


Executive Summary 

• Project Purpose, Goals, and Objectives 

The purpose of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) Regional 

Freight Plan Project is to develop a roadmap for the improvement of freight transportation 

in the NYMTC region. The plan presents a wide range of strategies and actions that 

include capital projects, operational improvements, and policy changes. These strategies 

are multimodal, targeting highway, rail, and marine transport, and can be implemented in 

the short term (one to three years), mid term (three to 10 years), or long term (more than 

10 years). Some of the recommendations in the plan call for short-term actions around 

which a regional consensus for action already exists. In the case of the most capitalintensive 

projects, the plan recommends that agency owners continue the planning process. 

NYMTC has used this planning process to develop a consensus on the problems 

facing the region and the goals and objectives of a regional freight program. 

The Regional Freight Plan Project also emphasizes the importance of individual agency 

initiatives, and the need for coordination across these agencies. This is an appropriate 

function for a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), which typically looks beyond 

the operational and geographic responsibilities of individual agencies. 

Due to the complexity of this effort, many issues remain unresolved. However, it is hoped 

that the plan points the way for further resolution and action by project proponents and 

other stakeholders. In particular, this plan does not address “inside the gate” issues 

involving the operation of specific facilities such as airports, ports, and intermodal yards; 

this is a topic best left to the owners and operators. The NYMTC region also is part of a 

larger interdependent tri-state metropolitan area that includes parts of New Jersey and 

Connecticut. While NYMTC can only directly address projects originating within its own 

jurisdiction, the movement of freight does not recognize arbitrary political boundaries. 

Therefore, many of the issues and proposed actions discussed in this report have resonance 

in the larger region and will require a coordinated approach to their solution. 

The Regional Freight Plan Project was intended to achieve the following goals for the 

improvement of freight transportation, as originally defined in the Regional Transportation 

Plan. It is intended that these goals be achieved in ways that protect the interests of communities 

throughout the region: 


ES-1


• To improve the transportation of freight by removing burdensome government regulations 

and restrictions; 

• To improve the physical infrastructure of the transportation system for freight-related 

transport among shipping and receiving points, and major terminals and ports; 

• To improve the reliability and overall movement of freight in the region by 

encouraging expedient and cooperative multimodal shipment of freight; 

• To improve the reliability and overall movement of freight in the region by expanding 

alternatives for trucks and other commercial vehicles; and 

• To improve the freight system’s strategic redundancy (NYMTC and other agencies 

currently are addressing this goal in other studies). 

In pursuit of these goals, the following objectives were established for the Freight Plan: 

• Develop a timely descriptive narrative of the current freight delivery system (Tasks 1, 

2, and 4); 

• Provide recommendations for capital and operating projects, policies, and programs 

(Tasks 5 and 6 and this report); 

• Suggest initiatives for further freight transportation planning and incorporate freight 

needs into the regional transportation planning process (this report); and 

• Educate the public on freight transportation characteristics and issues from the point 

of view of shippers, carriers, and other affected stakeholders (ongoing Freight 

Transportation Working Group process). 

• Problem Statement 

Forecast economic growth in the 10-county NYMTC region is expected to significantly 

increase the volume of freight moved in the region. The 10-county NYMTC region 

already experiences the highest volume of freight movement of any metropolitan area in 

the nation. Regional commodity flows are expected to grow from 333 million annual tons 

in 1998 to 490.5 million annual tons in 2025, a 47 increase. Nationally, it is anticipated that 

the volume of freight will increase by 68 percent between 1998 and 2020. Thus, the 

growth of freight movement in the region is forecast to be slightly lower than in the nation 

as a whole. 

The commodities, modes, and origins and destinations of freight movement in the region 

are expected to change little. Highway-based modes are expected to continue to dominate 

other modes. Trucks carry over 80 percent of regional freight (measured in tons), while 

rail and air each carry less than one percent. Nationally, 16 percent of freight moves by 

rail. Among the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the country as measured by the Bureau 


ES-2


of Economic Analysis (BEA), the New York region (even including the New Jersey portion) 

ranks second to last in terms of rail mode share, just ahead of Boston. 

In general, the NYMTC region’s freight system serves admirably to move the large volume 

of goods needed to keep the nation’s largest regional economic engine running. 

However, those who reside and do business in the region face high levels of traffic congestion. 

This congestion impacts the predominant mode of freight travel in the region – 

trucks. As residents, this increases their cost of living. As businesspeople, this forces 

them to pay more for freight services. There are a number of specific issues that, in aggregate, 

create less than efficient conditions to move freight. The five deficiencies identified 

below relate to broad regional issues, specific bottlenecks, or detailed terminal interconnections 

at particular facilities. 

1. Lack of Coordination – Historically, freight transportation has evolved around independent 

modal networks, each competing with others in a redundant and often 

destructive manner. 

2. Modal Dependence – The region is overwhelmingly dependent on a highway infrastructure 

that is subject to tremendous congestion at all times of the day. 

3. State of Infrastructure – Freight movements over both rail and highway systems are 

restricted by inadequate dimensional envelopes to prevent rail cars and trucks from 

moving in the most logical and expedient fashion. 

4. Operational Limitations – Truck access is hampered by a highway system that is not 

always contiguous for commercial vehicle movement, while freight trains must share 

publicly owned and intensively used passenger rail lines. 

5. Economic Challenges – These deficiencies inflate the price of goods and services, 

impacting business locational decisions, reducing the profitability of existing companies, 

and otherwise sapping the region’s economic vitality. 

These challenges result in the following specific deficiencies: 

• Poor highway performance; 

• Inadequate access to freight handling facilities; 

• Inadequate infrastructure and underused modes; 

• Transportation network constraints; and 

• The need for higher security. 

These problems will worsen as the region continues to grow and prosper if action is not 

taken to fix them. Despite the recent recession and the aftermath of the September 11, 

2001 terrorist attacks, strong economic growth is still forecast for the region in the next 25 

years. An efficient transportation system is essential to achieve this growth, provide economic 

opportunity for the region’s residents, encourage businesses to locate and expand 

in the region, and to enhance the region’s preeminence in such fields as finance, technology 

and the arts. 


ES-3


• Process 

Strategies for the Regional Freight Plan were identified through the following process: 

• A public forum was held to solicit a broad and varied list of improvements. Further 

input was obtained from NYMTC’s Freight Transportation Working Group; 

• NYMTC’s member agencies, as represented by its Program, Finance and Administration 

Committee, generated a working list of candidate freight strategies and actions to test; 

• Actions were separated into short-term solutions with an implementation timeframe 

roughly corresponding to the current Transportation Improvement Program and 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program planning horizons (one to three 

years), mid-term solutions (three to 10 years), and long-term solutions (more than 10 

years); and 

• Actions were further separated into three distinct alternative packages for analysis 

purposes: 

− 

− 

− 

Policy package of short-term operational strategies, 

Package of capital-intensive highway improvements, and 

Package of capital-intensive rail improvements. 

Projects were evaluated against both transportation and non-transportation measures. 

The transportation measures included a planning-level assessment of local vehicular 

operations disaggregated by subregion, vehicle type and time of day. Where an actual 

physical change in the roadway network was proposed and sufficiently defined by project 

proponents, the impact was assessed using the NYMTC Best Practices regional travel 

demand model (BPM). Non-transportation measures included qualitative assessments of 

impacts on the environment, economy, connectivity, communities, institutional and 

physical feasibility, and the use of new technologies. The analysis focused on the most 

significant freight corridors for the regional movement of freight, including the following: 

• The Northern Crossing corridor (I-95), consisting of the George Washington Bridge, 

Cross Bronx Expressway, and Major Deegan Expressway; 

• The Southern Crossing corridor (I-278), consisting of the Goethals Bridge, Outerbridge 

Crossing, Staten Island Expressway, and Verrazano Narrows Bridge; 

• The Eastern (I-278) corridor, consisting of the Gowanus and Brooklyn/Queens 

Expressways; 

• The Eastern (I-678) corridor, consisting of the Van Wyck and Clearview Expressways 

from the north to JFK International Airport and adjacent industrial areas; and 

• The Southern Brooklyn-Queens corridor to JFK consisting of Atlantic Avenue, Linden 

Boulevard, the Belt Parkway, and the Bay Ridge Branch of the Long Island Railroad 

(with no current roadway). 


ES-4


For analytical purposes, the latter two corridors were combined into a single study corridor 

of access routes to JFK Airport and environs. 

• Recommendations 

The Regional Freight Plan’s recommendations are summarized in Table ES.1, organized 

by project goals, and in Table ES.2, organized by the regional deficiencies outlined above. 

Table ES.1 provides a complete outline of each recommendation, including benefits, corridor 

impacts, responsible agencies, timeframes, next steps, and capital costs (where an 

estimate is available). Table ES.2 links each action to a specific deficiency or deficiencies in 

the regional freight network. The narrative description of each project that follows in the 

body of the report is organized as follows: 

• Project goal to be achieved; 

• Strategy to support the goal; and 

• Actions (specific projects) to implement the strategy. 

These recommendations provide a framework for future actions. They complete the 

iterative process that began with the description of the freight system. This process continued 

with the formation of goals that help define a healthy system, the development of 

performance criteria, the identification of possible solutions, and the evaluation of the 

solution. The process concludes, with this material, in the elaboration of a program that 

builds upon the previous steps by identifying follow-up activities and responsible organizations, 

as well as the timeframe within which they are to be accomplished. 

The actions identified in the roadmap were analyzed for this project by means of limited 

quantitative and qualitative methods as described in more detail in Section 3.0 More 

extensive analyses are being undertaken by project proponents. Based on the analyses 

conducted for this project or those analyses already conducted by project proponents, the 

identified actions could be expected to meet the following plan objectives: 

• Reduce future truck volumes on some roadways; 

• Improve traffic operations on some roadways; 

• Increase rail mode share in the region; 

• Improve environmental quality; and 

• Create a more efficient and cost-effective freight delivery system. 

The analysis of these benefits is described in Section 6.0. 


ES-5

Table ES.1 Actions by Goals and Strategies 

Goal Strategy Action Benefits Corridor Agency Timeframe Next Steps Cost 

1. Improve transportation 

of freight by 

removing burdensome 

government 

regulations and 

restrictions 

A. Improve management 

of truck routes 

Complete NYCDOT 

Truck Route 

Management Study 

Improved regional 

connectivity and 

reduced community 

impacts 

Citywide NYCDOT Short Complete “Citywide 

Truck Route 

Management and 

Community Impact 

Study” 

N/A 

Assess alternatives for 

providing greater 

access to national standard 

53’ long, 102-inch 

wide tractor trailers 


connectivity 

Northern 

Southern 

Eastern (I-278) 


NYSDOT 

NYMTC 

NYCDOT 

PANYNJ 

Short 

Conduct feasibility 

study 

N/A 

B. Improve the management 

of commercial 

vehicle loading 

and unloading zones 

Expand the commercial 

parking program in 

Manhattan and further 

assess impacts 

75 percent of trucks 

finish delivery within 

first hour – suggests 

VMT/VHT reduction 

Manhattan NYCDOT Short Expand program 

boundaries; continue 

to assess 

impacts 

Revenue will 

cover capital cost 

C. Expand the application 

of ITS to commercial 

vehicle 

operations 

Automate commercial 

vehicle permitting, 

credentialing and 

enforcement 

Enhanced truck movements 

and safety 

leading to reduced costs 

and travel time 

All 

NYSDOT 

NYSTA 

Short 

Implement program 

under development 

and assess impacts 

$3.5 M 

Expand Integrated 

Incident Management 

System in NYC area 

Accelerated incident All 

response time to reduce 

non-recurring congestion 

and improve public 

safety 

NYSDOT 

NYCDOT 

MTA 

NYPD 

Short 

Proceed with multiagency 

expansion as 

planned 

$2.5 M for the SIE 

NYCOEM 

Provide real time traveler 

information to 

commercial vehicle 

operators 


leading to 

reduced costs and 

travel time 

Northern 

Southern 

I-95 NE 

Thruway 

NYSDOT 

NYCDOT 

PANYNJ 

Short 

Coordinate program 

development with 

I-95 Corridor 

Coalition 

N/A 

I-87 NYS 

Thruway 

Western

Table ES.1 Actions by Goals and Strategies (continued) 


Continue experimentation 

with value pricing 

of toll facilities 

Reduced peak period 

congestion 

All 

NYSTA 

PANYNJ 

MTA 

NYSDOT 

Short 


and 

analysis 

Complete Off-Peak 

Delivery Study 

Costs to be 

recovered from 

tolls 

2. Improve the physical 

infrastructure of the 

transportation system 

for freight 

related transport 

between shipping 

and receiving points 

A. Use marine connections 

to enhance 

access to key 

distribution points 

PIDN – Transport port 

containers by barge and 

rail to out-of-region 

transshipment facilities 

1,256,356 TEUs moved 

by rail/barge instead of 

truck 

Northern 

Southern 

I-95 NE 

Thruway 

I-87 NYS 

Thruway 

PANYNJ 

Short to 

mid 

Assess impact of 

early deployments 

(Albany) and 

expand as planned 

$490 M 

Western 

Assess feasibility of 

regional truck ferries 

Reduced truck traffic on 

roads 

TBD 

NYMTC 

NYSDOT 

Short 

Conduct regional 

Feasibility Study 

N/A 

PANYNJ 

NJTPA 

NJDOT 

B. Use rail connections 

to enhance access to 

key distribution 

points 

Restore service on 

Staten island railroad 

Travis Branch – 16,000 

carloads/year 

Howland Hook ondock 

rail – 20,000 rail 

cars/year 

Southern 

PANYNJ 

NYCEDC 

Short 

Implement existing 

plans 

$263 M 

Improve First Avenue 

rail tracks in South 

Brooklyn waterfront 

Support bi-level auto 

carrier port – 81,000 

tons 

Southern NYCEDC Short Implement as 


$17 M



3. Improve the reliability 

of overall move- 

EoH rail service 

A. Reduce barriers to 

ment of freight in the 

region by encouraging 

multimodal 

shipment 

Provide a minimum of 

17’ 9” TOFC clearance; 

eliminate weight and 

clearance restrictions on 

plate F cars and tri-level 

auto carriers (19’ 6”); 

expand eventually to 

23-foot double-stack 

clearance 

300,000 to 700,000 tons 

annually to Pilgrim; 

69,000 tons on Hudson 

Line 

Western 

Long Island 

Expressway 

I-87 NYS 

Thruway 

I-95 NE 

Thruway 

NYSDOT 

MTA 

PANYNJ 

NYCEDC 

Short to 

mid 

Complete “Hudson 

Line Railroad Corridor 

Transportation 

Plan” 

Complete “East of 

Hudson Rail Freight 

Study” 

Conduct Pilgrim EIS 

$0.75 M for 

Westchester 

Avenue 

Clearance 

(Harlem River 

Yard to Oak 

Point) 

Complete Cross 

Harbor EIS 

Reduce operational 

conflicts between passenger 

and freight service 

on region’s 

railroads 


Line; others TBD 

Western 

Long Island 

Expressway 

I-87 NYS 

Thruway 

I-95 NE 

Thruway 

NYSDOT 

MTA 

PANYNJ 

Short to 

mid 


Line Railroad 

Corridor 


Plan” 



Study” 

N/A 

B. Evaluate the further 

expansion of freight 

yards and warehouses 

(freight 

villages) 

Assess potential to 

develop Harlem River 

as intermodal yard 

TBD 

Western 

I-684 

I-87 NYS 

Thruway 

NYSDOT 

MTA 

Short to 

mid 


Line Railroad 

Corridor 


Plan” 

N/A 

I-95 NE 

Thruway 


develop Pilgrim State 

Hospital in Deer Park 

as a bulk and/or intermodal 

facility 

300,000 to 700,000 tons Long Island 

Expressway 

NYSDOT 

Mid to long Conduct Pilgrim EIS $87 M



Assess potential to develop 

Phelps Dodge site and 

adjacent areas in Maspeth, 

Queens into a bulk or 

intermodal facility 

2.9 to 7.3 million tons 

of intermodal 

Northern 

Southern 

NYCEDC 

Mid to long Complete Cross 

Harbor EIS 

Funds included 

under Cross 

Harbor tunnel 

Assess potential to further 

develop existing yard at 

65 th Street, Brooklyn for 

bulk, intermodal, and/or 

port-related traffic 

TBD 

Northern 

Southern 

NYCEDC 


Harbor EIS 

Advance Port 

Revitalization plans 

N/A 

C. Improve Cross- 

Hudson Rail Service 


Feasibility Study to 

identify additional sites 

Improve existing float 

bridges at Greenville, NJ 

TBD All NYMTC Short Conduct Feasibility 

Study 

TBD Southern TBD Short Implement plans as 

designed 

N/A 

$8-10 M 

Assess cross-harbor rail 

freight tunnel 

9.4 to 14.9 million 

tons 

Northern 

Southern 

NYCEDC Long Complete Cross 

Harbor EIS. 

Single tunnel 

$4.46 

Double tunnel 

$7.3 B 


and overall 

movement of freight 

in the region by 

expanding alternatives 

for trucks 

A. Improve Northern 

Corridor Crossing 

Assess improvements to 

the Highbridge 

Interchange 

Improved traffic 

flow on I-95 

Northern NYSDOT Long Complete EIS N/A 

Assess continuity of 

connector road system on 

the CBE 

Improve Sheridan- 

Bruckner Interchange 

Improved traffic 

flow, reduced traffic 

diverted to local 

roadways 

Improve access to 

Hunts Point Market 

Northern NYSDOT Long “Bronx Arterial 

Needs Study” 

completed 

Evaluate better 

connection with 

TME/GWB 

CBE connector roads 

N/A 

Northern NYSDOT Long Complete EIS $200 M



B. Improve Southern 


Assess upgrading 

crossing at Goethals 

Bridge 

Improved traffic flow 

and reduced accidents 

Southern 

PANYNJ 

NYMTC 

Long 

Conduct EIS 

Conduct corridor 

study 

$450-650 M 

Assess completing a 

continuous bus/HOV 

system on the SIE and 

related improvements 

Increased capacity and 

volume 

Southern 

NYSDOT 

NYMTC 

NYCDOT 

Long 

Conduct EIS 


study 

$500 M 

C. Improve Eastern 

Corridor (I-278) 

Assess removing clearance 

restriction on the 

BQE 

Reduced traffic diverted 

from local roadways 


NYSDOT 

NYMTC 

Long 

Conduct Feasibility 

Study 


study 

N/A 

Assess feasibility of offpeak 

truck use of 

Gowanus HOV lane 


on mainline 


NYSDOT 

NYMTC 

Short to 

long 

Conduct demonstration 

project, 

analyze, and apply 

to Gowanus 

Reconstruction EIS; 

conduct corridor 

study 

N/A 

D. Improve JFK 

Airport/Industrial 

Access Corridor 

Assess options for 

improvements to the 

major routes in the 

corridor 

Improved access to JFK 

and adjacent areas 


South Brooklyn/ 

Queens 

NYSDOT 

NYMTC 

NYCDOT 

Long 

Conduct Corridor 

Study 

Complete S. 

Brooklyn TIS 

N/A 

PANYNJ


Table ES.2 Actions by Deficiency 

Existing Study 

or Project 

1. Poor Highway Performance 

Highbridge Interchange improvements 

Cross Bronx Expressway Connector roads 

Goethals Bridge improvements 

Staten Island Expressway Connector roads 

“Freightways” (Gowanus HOV) 

2. Inadequate Access to Freight Facilities 

Port Inland Distribution Network 

Freight ferries 

Staten Island Railroad restoration 

South Brooklyn track improvements – 1 st Avenue 

Sheridan/Bruckner Interchange – Access to Hunts Point Market 

Freight villages 

JFK Airport corridor improvements 


TOFC clearance 

Commercial vehicle loading zones 

3. Inadequate Infrastructure and Underused Modes 

Cross Harbor Tunnel 


Reducing rail freight/passenger operational conflicts 

Improve existing floats 

Increase track loading to accommodate 286,000 rail cars 

4. Transportation Network Constraints 

Truck route management study 

Reduce limitations on 53-foot trailers 

Brooklyn-Queens Expressway clearance 

Automated truck permitting and credentialing 

Value pricing 

Integrated Incident Management System 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Need for Improved Security 

“Inside the gate” projects to be addressed by others 


ES-11


• Financing 

The NYMTC region faces a growing gap between the demand for transportation 

improvements and the likely supply of funding available from Federal, state, regional, 

and local sources. Choices will have to be made about which projects receive priority for 

advancement. Operational or capital improvements to roadways generally benefit the 

transportation of both people and goods. However, projects that mainly benefit freight 

will compete against those that benefit passengers. The Regional Transportation Plan 

identifies financially constrained needs of $143 billion between 2000 and 2025 for state of 

good repair, normal replacement, and some capacity expansion projects. Few if any of the 

projects included in the NYMTC Regional Freight Plan are reflected in the Regional 

Transportation Plan’s needs assessment. 

Based on the limited estimates made available for this study, projects identified for 

advancement or further study in this report would cost approximately $2.0 billion. The 

Cross Harbor tunnel and ancillary facilities would cost an additional $4.4 to $7.3 billion 

depending on whether a single or double tunnel system were to be constructed. These 

estimates do not include the costs of potential major highway projects that would benefit 

both passenger and freight movement, such as improvements to the Highbridge 

Interchange, construction of continuous connector roads on the Cross Bronx Expressway, 

removal of the height clearance restriction on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and as 

yet undefined improvements to the JFK Airport corridors. These projects, taken together, 

would comprise a multi-billion dollar program. They will be eligible to compete for 

Federal Highway Trust funds and matching state dollars. 

Many of the highway actions described in this report can potentially draw on longestablished 

state and Federal funding sources. Most of these actions would improve both 

freight and passenger transportation, and hence do not need to be justified as one or the 

other. The Federal Highway Administration distributes Highway Trust Fund revenue 

from the Federal gas tax to states on a formula basis, and states in turn distribute these 

funds to urban and rural areas. The Federal government will typically fund up to 

80 percent of the cost of eligible projects. Future funding amounts will depend on any 

potential changes in the formula allocation that may emerge from the reauthorization of 

the TEA-21 legislation, as well as overall authorization levels. 

In comparison, freight rail projects have historically received little Federal funding and the 

operators and owners of these facilities tend to have limited capital resources. For example, 

there is no Federal rail freight equivalent of the Federal Transit Administration’s New 

Starts discretionary funding program. In the NYMTC region, many rail freight facilities 

are publicly owned but privately operated, complicating the task of public participation in 

funding rail freight projects. The best hope for funding such projects is either to develop a 

new dedicated Federal funding program specifically for this purpose under TEA-21 

reauthorization, or to Congressionally earmark funds for specific projects under existing 

program categories. 


ES-12


The Administration’s proposal for TEA-21 reauthorization the Safe, Accountable, Flexible 

and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), and a Congressional initiative 

called Transportation Equity Act Legacy for Users (TEALU) each contain several proposals 

that would broaden the Federal government’s ability to participate in freight projects. 

Other potential strategies include user tolls and surcharges and public/private development 

partnerships. In order to compete for these potential new funding sources, it is 

essential that the region coalesce around a set of priority projects. 

• Organization of Report 

This report is organized as follows: 

• Section 1.0 – Project Purpose; 

• Section 2.0 – Existing and Future Freight Movement in the Region and Identification 

of Deficiencies; 

• Section 3.0 – Potential Strategies and How They Were Evaluated; 

• Section 4.0 – Relationship between Performance Measures, Deficiencies, and 

Recommendations; 

• Section 5.0 – Strategies of the Regional Freight Plan; 

• Section 6.0 – Summary of Regional Impacts; and 

• Section 7.0 – Financing. 

The NYMTC Regional Freight Plan has required a great deal of analytical work. This 

work is presented in a series of technical memoranda that can be viewed on the NYMTC 

web site, http://www.nymtc.org. 


ES-13


1.0 NYMTC’s Freight Plan: 

A Roadmap to a 21 st Century 

Freight System 

The purpose of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) Regional 

Freight Plan Project is to develop a roadmap for improving freight transportation in the 

NYMTC region. The freight plan presents a wide range of strategies and actions that 

include capital projects, operational improvements, and policy changes. These strategies 

are multimodal, including highway, rail, and marine, and can be implemented in the short 

term (one to three years), mid term (three to 10 years), and long term (more than 10 years). 

Some of the recommendations in the report call for short-term actions around which a 

regional consensus already exists. In the case of most of the capital intensive, long-term 

projects, the recommendations are for the project proponent to proceed with the planning 

process such as the completion of a Major Investment Study (MIS) or Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) in conjunction with corridor-wide studies. 

NYMTC has used this freight planning process to reach a consensus on the problems facing 

the region and on the goals and objectives of a regional freight program. This process 

also emphasizes the importance of individual agency initiatives, and the need for coordination 

across these agencies. This is an appropriate function for a metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO), which typically looks beyond the operational and geographic 

responsibilities of individual agencies. 

Many related studies are underway or planned in the NYMTC region. Following is a list 

of the efforts (and their sponsors) that are discussed in this report: 

• Truck Route Management and Community Impact Reduction Study, New York City 

Department of Transportation (NYCDOT); 

• Port Inland Distribution Network, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

(PANYNJ); 

• Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan, NYSDOT, Metropolitan Transit 

Authority (MTA), Amtrak, and CSX Railroad; 

• East-of-Hudson Rail Freight Study, PANYNJ; 

• Pilgrim Intermodal Terminal Feasibility Study and EIS (pending), NYSDOT; 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-1


• Cross Harbor Freight Movement EIS, New York City Economic Development 

Corporation (NYCEDC); 

• Highbridge Interchange EIS, NYSDOT; 

• Gowanus Reconstruction EIS, NYSDOT; 

• Bronx Arterial Needs Study, NYSDOT; 

• Staten Island Expressway MIS, NYSDOT; 

• Goethals Bridge DEIS, PANYNJ; 

• New York City Arterial Goods Movement Study, NYCDOT; 

• South Brooklyn Transportation Improvement Study, NYMTC; and 

• Off-Peak Delivery Study, NYSDOT. 

Although many issues remain unresolved due to the complexity of this planning effort, it 

is hoped that this report points the way for further resolution and action by project proponents 

and other stakeholders. In particular, this plan does not address “inside the gate” 

issues that involve the operation of specific facilities such as airports, ports, and intermodal 

yards – a topic best left to the owners and operators. Rather, the report focuses on 

landside access to key freight facilities. 

The NYMTC region is part of a larger interdependent tri-state metropolitan area that 

includes parts of New Jersey and Connecticut. While NYMTC can only directly address 

projects originating within the region, the movement of freight does not recognize arbitrary 

political boundaries. Therefore, many of the issues and proposed actions discussed 

in this report have resonance in the larger region and will require a coordinated response. 

A great deal of analytical work was accomplished in the production of this plan. This 

analysis is presented in the following technical memoranda and can be viewed on the 

NYMTC web site (nymtc.org): 

• Task 1 – Internal and External Scan of information relating to freight movement in the 

region; 

• Task 2 – Documentation of Existing Conditions; 

• Task 4 – Evaluation of Deficiencies; 

• Task 5 – Identification of Alternatives; and 

• Task 6 – Analysis of Alternatives. 



The Regional Freight Plan Project was intended to achieve the following goals as originally 

defined in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and modified to a small degree 

during this planning process: 

• Improve the transport of freight by removing burdensome government regulations 

and restrictions; 

• Improve the physical infrastructure of the transportation system for freight-related 

transport among shipping and receiving points, and among major terminals and ports; 

• Improve the reliability and overall movement of freight in the region by encouraging 

expedient and cooperative multimodal shipment of freight; 

• Improve the reliability and overall movement of freight in the region by expanding 

alternatives for trucks and other commercial vehicles; and 

• Improve the freight system’s strategic redundancy (NYMTC and other agencies currently 

are addressing this goal in other studies); 

In pursuit of these goals, the following objectives were established for the Freight Plan: 

• Develop a timely descriptive narrative of the current freight delivery system (Tasks 1, 

2, and 4); 

• Provide recommendations for capital and operating projects, policies, and programs 

(Tasks 5 and 6 and this report); 

• Suggest initiatives for further freight transportation planning and incorporate freight 

needs into the regional transportation planning process (this report); and 

• Educate the public on freight transportation characteristics and issues from the point 

of view of shippers, carriers, and other affected stakeholders (ongoing Freight 

Transportation Working Group process). 



2.0 Freight Transportation in the 

NYMTC Region Today and in 

the Future 

The purpose of this section of the NYMTC Regional Freight Plan is to provide background 

on freight trends and freight system characteristics, to discuss specific challenges and 

issues arising from these trends, and to identify specific ways in which these challenges 

manifest themselves in the regional freight system. 

• 2.1 Existing and Forecast Conditions 

2.1.1 Volume of Freight 

Forecast economic growth in the 10-county NYMTC region is expected to significantly 

increase the volume of freight moved in the region. The region already experiences the 

highest volume of freight movement of any metropolitan area in the nation. Existing and 

forecast conditions are described in terms of overall volume, how freight is moved, the 

commodities that are moved, and origins and destinations. Regional commodity flows 

are expected to grow from 333 million annual tons in 1998 to 490.5 million annual tons in 

2025, a 47 percent increase. This trend is shown by county in Figure 2.1. Nationally, it is 

anticipated that the volume of freight movement will increase by 68 percent between 1998 

and 2020, as shown in Figure 2.2. Thus, the growth of freight movement in the region is 

forecast to be slightly lower than in the nation as a whole. However, more recent data 

produced by the Cross Harbor Freight Movement EIS shows that the rate of increase is 

now forecast to be higher than the national average. In either event, this rate of growth is 

significant and surpasses most other indicators of regional economic growth such as 

population and employment. 



Figure 2.1 

Freight Growth in the NYMTC Region 

Base and Forecasted Flows by County 

Annual Tons (in Millions) 

250 

200 

1998 Data 

2025 Forecast 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Kings 

New York Suffolk Westchester Queens Nassau 

Bronx 

Rockland Richmond Putnam 

Counties 

Source: Reebie Associates 1998 TRANSEARCH database for the NYMTC region, purchased for the Regional 

Freight Plan Project, forecast to 2025 by DRI-WEFA, Inc. 

Figure 2.2 

National Freight Growth Forecast 

Tons (in Millions) 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1998 2010 2020 

Source: FHWA, Freight Analysis Framework. 



2.1.2 Change in How Freight Is Moved 

The transportation modes by which freight is moved are expected to change little over the 

next two decades, as shown in Figure 2.3. This forecast is based solely on economic 

changes and assumes nothing is done to divert volumes from mode to mode. Highwaybased 

modes are expected to continue to dominate other modes. Trucks carry over 

80 percent of regional freight (measured in tons), while rail and air each carry less than 

one percent. 1 However, because of the significant increase in freight volume, each mode’s 

relative volume also is expected to increase. A comparison of regional and national 

modes reveals that the NYMTC region is more heavily skewed to the highway mode and 

less to the rail mode than the national average. This is shown in Figure 2.4. 

2.1.3 The Commodities That Are Moved 

In the NYMTC region, the movement of certain commodities is expected to grow more 

quickly than others. Figure 2.5 shows the 10 fastest growing commodities between 1998 

and 2025. Three of the 10 – “petroleum or coal products,” “pulp paper or allied products,” 

and “lumber and wood products” – traditionally travel by modes other than truck, such as 

rail, barge, or pipeline. Five of the 10 – “food or kindred products,” “chemicals or allied 

products,” “waste or scrap material,” “primary metal products,” and “rubber or miscellaneous 

products” – could be attracted to either rail or marine modes if they are shipped in 

sufficient quantities over long enough distances. Only two of the 10 commodities – “secondary 

cargoes and drayage” and “clay, concrete, glass and stone products” – are considered 

truck-dependent because of the need for “just-in-time” delivery, local availability, 

and high sensitivity to transportation costs. 

2.1.4 Origins and Destinations 

Figures 2.6 and 2.7 show the origins and destinations, respectively, of freight moving into 

and out of the NYMTC region. New York State and the NYMTC region itself (intraregional 

shipments) are the region’s largest trading partners, followed by the Mid- 

Atlantic, Southeast, and Midwest states. The volume of trade with the Western United 

States is much lower. This pattern is not forecast to change appreciably in the future. 

1 

An East-of-Hudson rail mode share of three percent is frequently quoted in public. This figure is 

a decade old. Most recent data show the correct figure to be in the one to two percent range. 

Reebie Associates, 1998 TRANSEARCH database (0.97 percent); 2000 database (1.68 percent). 



Figure 2.3 

Freight Growth in the NYMTC Region 

Changes in Regional Mode Split – 1998 to 2025 (by Tons) 

1998 Mode Split for the NYMTC Region 

Water 

18.3% 

Rail 

0.8% 

Air 

0.2% 

Truck 

80.7% 

Forecasted Mode Split for the NYMTC Region 

Water 

18.0% 

Rail 

0.9% 

Air 

0.2% 

Truck 

80.9% 



Figure 2.4 

Freight Mode Share Nationally 

• Trucks carry the 

majority of freight 

• Rail freight plays an 

important role, 

particularly for moving 

heavier goods over 

longer distances 


12 

78% 

10 

8 

88% 

Air 

Truck 

Rail 

Water 

6 

4 

2 

0 

60% 

16% 

6% 

28% 

12% 5% 6% 

1% 

Millions of Tons Billions of Ton-Miles Billions of Dollars 

Source: Reebie Associates and FHWA Freight Analysis Framework Project. 

Figure 2.5 Freight Growth in the NYMTC Region, 1998-2025 

Base and Forecasted Flows by Commodity 


120 

1998 

2025 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Petroleum 

or Coal 

Products 

Clay, 

Concrete, 

Glass, 

or Stone 

Products 

Food or 

Kindred 

Products 

Secondary 

Cargoes 

And 

Drayage 

Chemicals 

or Allied 

Products 

Waste or 

Scrap 

Materials 

Lumber 

or Wood 

Products 

Excluding 

Furniture 

Pulp, Paper, 

or Allied 

Products 

Primary 

Metal 

Products 

Fabricated 

Metal 

Products 

Source: Reebie Associates. 



Figure 2.6 

Annual Tons of Freight Arriving in the NYMTC Region 

By Origin 


Figure 2.7 

Annual Tons of Freight Leaving in the NYMTC Region 

By Destination 




• 2.2 Challenges Identified during the Plan 

In general, the NYMTC region’s freight system serves to move the large volume of goods 

needed to keep the nation’s largest regional economic engine running. However, those 

who reside and do business in the region face high levels of traffic congestion, which 

impact the predominant mode of freight travel in the region – trucks. As residents, this 

increases their cost of living. As businesspeople, this forces them to pay more for freight 

services. There are a number of specific issues that, in aggregate, create less than efficient 

conditions to move freight. The five deficiencies identified below relate to broad regional 

issues, specific bottlenecks, or detailed terminal interconnections at particular facilities. 

1. Lack of Coordination 

To meet the dramatic forecast growth in goods movement, the NYMTC region will 

need to ensure the coordinated and rational use of all of its transportation resources. 

Freight transportation must be viewed as an overall system. Historically, freight 

transportation has evolved around independent modal networks, each competing 

with the others in a redundant and often destructive manner. By encouraging modal 

systems to work together, the region can focus its energy on the more serious issue of 

balancing its need for convenient passenger transportation with its need for efficient 

and high-quality freight transportation. In this way, the region can increase its share 

of intermodal traffic. 

2. Modal Dependence 

One significant and recurring deficiency is the region’s overwhelming dependence for 

freight transportation on a highway infrastructure that can become “gridlocked” at 

any time of the day. Truck gridlock causes adverse economic and environmental 

impacts from delays and air pollution, and limits the capacity of major rail, port, and 

air terminals that depend on trucks for final goods delivery. Investing in a more 

modally balanced and efficient freight system could alleviate many regional deficiencies, 

and at less cost than a strategy that seeks only to expand the regional truck infrastructure. 

The regional rail freight infrastructure has not been sufficiently developed 

to provide a competitive alternative to trucking. While rail will not become the dominant 

mode of transport, or even eliminate the need for expanded truck infrastructure, 

an improved regional rail infrastructure can accommodate a significant portion of the 

large forecast increase in freight volumes. 

3. State of Infrastructure 

Freight mobility is restricted by limitations on the region’s infrastructure. The region 

lacks infrastructure appropriate to conducting modern freight transportation operations. 

Freight movements over both rail and highway systems are restricted in locations 

where inadequate dimensional envelopes prevent the passage of modern rail 

cars or truck trailers. As a result, private logistical approaches have been required to 

reroute freight shipments, thereby increasing costs and community impacts. 



For example, some highway sections have lane widths that are too narrow, entrance 

and exit ramps that are too short, and overhead clearances that are too low to permit 

the safe passage of large tractor-trailers. Some stretches of railroad right-of-way also 

suffer from basic infrastructure constraints, such as inadequate track clearances 

(weight restrictions), tracks unsuited to heavier rail cars, and the lack of a direct crossharbor 

connection. Yards and reload facilities do not contain enough acreage to support 

increased shipments by rail. And everywhere, the rail and road systems are in 

need of overall improvement to bring them to a state of good repair. 

4. Operational Limitations 

The simple ability to travel from one point to another is hampered by a number of key 

restrictions. The traffic congestion that is pervasive for a large portion of the average 

weekday forces truck operators, freight transportation consumers, and warehouse and 

distribution facilities to adopt a variety of alternative, relatively inefficient logistical 

patterns. Longer travel times translate into longer turnaround times which delay 

shipments of mail, packages, manufactured goods, raw materials, food and other 

items. In addition, bridges and tunnels represent “choke points” for regional trips. 

Truck access is hampered by a highway system that is not always contiguous for commercial 

vehicle movement. This constraint is largely a result of a highway system 

separated into distinct components consisting of mixed traffic expressways (some of 

which have truck restrictions) and parkways from which all commercial vehicles are 

banned. Portions of the region have no limited access roadways for commercial 

vehicles. Commercial traffic is therefore routed through the local New York City truck 

network. 

Similar problems affect the rail freight carriers in the region. Freight trains must share 

publicly owned and intensively used passenger rail lines. While many stakeholders in 

the region might like to move more freight by rail, they cannot due to this highly competitive 

track usage. In addition, rail freight operators also are subjected to circuitous 

routings due to the paucity of cross regional rail links. 

5. Economic Challenges Posed by the Freight Transportation System 

These transportation deficiencies result in higher prices for goods and services, which 

can impact business locational decisions, reduce the profitability of existing companies, 

and otherwise hamper the region’s economic vitality. The NYMTC region has 

some of the highest freight shipment costs in the nation. Truck costs are double those 

of the national average. The high cost of land and the lack of focus on freight needs 

contributes to the relocation of freight-related businesses to other parts of the metropolitan 

area or indeed to other distant states. The lack of modal choices reduces the 

efficiency of the system and suppresses competition, which in turn results in higher 

costs. 



• 2.3 Specific Conditions Identified through the Plan Effort 

As a result of the deficiencies identified in Section 2.2, the NYMTC region suffers from 

poor highway performance, inadequate access to freight handling facilities, inadequate 

infrastructure, underused modes, transportation network constraints, and insufficient 

system redundancy and security. These specific conditions are described in more detail in 

the following subsections. 

2.3.1 Poor Highway Performance 

Chronic roadway congestion exists throughout much of the day on the region’s major 

arterials and highways. This congestion imposes travel time and cost impacts on shippers, 

receivers, and consumers and reduces the reliability of shipping. Congestion also 

inconveniences the broader traveling public and degrades regional air quality and community 

health. This congestion is particularly critical given the region’s heavy reliance on 

trucking (80 percent of all freight movements), which further exacerbates regional roadway 

congestion and makes freight movement particularly vulnerable to the severe congestion 

experienced by all vehicles. 2 Figure 2.8 shows the density of the national highway 

network (in terms of tonnage transported) in the northeastern United States and in the 

NYMTC region. Figure 2.9 shows the forecast for dramatically worsening highway congestion 

in the region during the life of this Plan. Figures 2.10 and 2.11 show how highway 

congestion is expected to worsen nationally during the same time period. Total vehicular 

traffic on the region’s roadways is forecast to increase by 17 percent, but truck traffic is 

forecast to increase by 21 percent for all trucks and by 51 percent for “freight trucks.” 3 It 

does not appear likely that the region’s freight transportation infrastructure as presently 

constituted and operated can accommodate this growth. 

2 

Reebie Associates, TRANSEARCH database, 1998. 

3 

Freight trucks, also called “commodity trucks,” are the portion of the total trucking fleet that carry 

major point-to-point goods shipments within and between regional freight centers. They are 

generally large tractor-trailer combinations. In contrast to the broader truck fleet (including 

service vans and local delivery trucks) the behavior of freight trucks is highly regular, and easier 

to influence through public policy and investment decisions. 



Figure 2.8 

National Highway Freight Network 

Tons Moved 


Figure 2.9 

Trucking Challenge 

Dramatically Worsening Roadway Congestion 

Source: New York State Department of Transportation. 



Figure 2.10 

Congested Highways Nationally 

2000 

Source: FHWA HPMS data. 

Figure 2.11 

Congested Highways Nationally 

2020 

Source: FHWA HPMS data. 



2.3.2 Inadequate Access to Freight Handling Facilities 

As shown in Figure 2.12, landside access is inadequate to many existing or potential major 

freight generators in the region, such as JFK International Airport, Hunts Point Market, 

the Brooklyn waterfront, and rail intermodal terminals. Figure 2.13 shows the limitations 

on regional highway access to airports. For example, truck access to JFK depends on the 

congested Van Wyck Expressway, since trucks are prohibited from the Belt Parkway and 

must cross Brooklyn on local arterials. 

Figure 2.12 

East-of-Hudson Freight Transportation Infrastructure 

JFK International Airport 

Source: New York City Economic Development Corporation 

and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 



Figure 2.13 

Limited Truck Access to Airports 

Low tunnel heights and 

congestion through 

Manhattan limit access 

to Newark Airport. 

Trucks not allowed 

on Grand Central 

Parkway access route 

to LaGuardia. 

Congested Van Wyck 

Expressway is the 

only limited access 

route to JFK. 

Time-sensitive air freight relies on efficient truck access to final delivery sites. 

2.3.3 Inadequate Infrastructure and Underused Modes 

The rail freight infrastructure is constrained by four factors: the dominance of passenger 

trains (see Figure 2.14); the lack of major rail freight crossings south of Albany; vertical/ 

lateral clearance restrictions that limit the use of modern rail equipment (see Figures 2.15 

and 2.16); and limited land availability for major yards and warehousing facilities. As a 

result, only about one percent of goods (in tons) shipped in the NYMTC region travel by 

rail. 4 Nationally, rail accounts for a significant share of freight movement (16 percent in 

tons). Table 2.1 compares the New York Metropolitan region to the 25 largest Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA) metropolitan regions in the country. Even accounting for the 

much higher rail mode share in the New Jersey part of the region than in the NYMTC part 

(about nine percent versus one percent), the New York/northern New Jersey region as a 

whole has a lower rail mode share than all of the 25 largest BEAs except for Boston. This 

pattern is shown in Figure 2.17, which highlights rail freight volume across the country 

and in the region. Railroad companies are relatively undercapitalized and hence unable to 

meet their own capital needs (see Figure 2.18 and the financing discussion in Section 6.0). 

However, as shown in Table 2.2, rail has significant efficiency and environmental benefits 

relative to truck transport. 

4 

Reebie Associates. 


Table 2.1 BEA Mode Split 

Inbound Freight Flows by Mode for Top 25 BEAs Outbound Freight Flows by Mode for Top 25 BEAs 

BEA Termination Name Total Tons 

Rail 

Pct. 

Truck 

Pct. 

Air 

Pct. 

Water 

Pct. BEA Origin Name Total Tons 

10 New York Metro 496,725,955 6.4% 82.3% 0.1% 11.2% 10 New York Metro 418,938,317 2.9% 79.5% 0.1% 17.5% 

64 Chicago, IL 495,820,841 30.3% 58.2% 0.1% 11.3% 160 Los Angeles 403,095,497 8.8% 89.2% 0.2% 1.9% 

160 Los Angeles 467,143,588 10.7% 83.3% 0.1% 5.9% 64 Chicago, IL 402,931,558 28.3% 66.7% 0.1% 4.9% 

131 Houston, TX 334,141,229 21.7% 62.4% 0.1% 15.7% 143 Casper, WY 362,552,096 91.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

163 San Fran/Oakland 270,056,004 8.3% 83.2% 0.1% 8.4% 131 Houston, TX 322,768,198 12.1% 72.1% 0.0% 15.8% 

127 Dallas-Fort Worth 261,794,189 19.4% 80.3% 0.2% 0.0% 163 San Fran/Oakland 271,597,503 5.0% 90.4% 0.2% 4.4% 

40 Atlanta, GA 237,163,443 18.3% 81.3% 0.3% 0.0% 96 St. Louis, MO 221,552,657 20.1% 46.2% 0.0% 33.6% 

12 Philadelphia 228,095,370 8.9% 79.0% 0.1% 12.0% 127 Dallas-Fort Worth 219,128,470 11.2% 88.5% 0.2% 0.0% 

13 Washington-Baltimore 228,092,560 15.4% 77.8% 0.1% 6.7% 47 Lexington, KY 218,245,477 72.4% 27.6% 0.0% 0.0% 

55 Cleveland-Akron, OH 227,722,796 19.8% 64.6% 0.0% 15.6% 83 New Orleans, LA 200,864,273 6.6% 50.6% 0.0% 42.8% 

57 Detroit, MI 221,621,490 14.0% 77.2% 0.1% 8.7% 48 Charleston, WV 193,097,404 47.0% 21.6% 0.0% 31.4% 

96 St. Louis, MO 210,207,552 34.5% 54.4% 0.1% 11.0% 12 Philadelphia 192,460,251 6.6% 74.4% 0.1% 18.8% 

167 Portland, OR 191,234,029 15.5% 75.9% 0.1% 8.5% 40 Atlanta, GA 188,617,850 6.1% 93.7% 0.1% 0.0% 

83 New Orleans, LA 187,633,092 8.1% 48.1% 0.0% 43.8% 57 Detroit, MI 178,411,981 10.7% 79.5% 0.1% 9.7% 

170 Seattle 186,397,933 10.0% 65.6% 0.1% 24.2% 170 Seattle 175,094,461 8.9% 75.2% 0.1% 15.8% 

3 Boston 176,191,923 4.9% 83.9% 0.1% 11.0% 53 Pittsburgh, PA 167,333,266 34.7% 43.9% 0.0% 21.4% 

107 Minneapolis 155,414,786 22.1% 76.1% 0.2% 1.6% 13 Washington-Baltimore 159,306,405 9.1% 82.5% 0.1% 8.2% 

53 Pittsburgh, PA 135,080,557 15.6% 48.3% 0.1% 35.9% 107 Minneapolis 157,810,940 22.6% 74.1% 0.1% 3.2% 

73 Memphis, TN 124,274,138 17.7% 66.2% 0.1% 16.1% 167 Portland, OR 155,856,172 8.1% 85.9% 0.1% 5.9% 

31 Miami, FL 122,729,694 8.5% 83.5% 0.1% 7.9% 55 Cleveland-Akron, OH 154,031,987 16.1% 75.1% 0.0% 8.8% 

99 Kansas City 110,867,872 35.9% 61.0% 0.1% 3.1% 3 Boston 132,862,914 2.6% 94.5% 0.1% 2.7% 

67 Indianapolis, IN 110,354,775 18.0% 81.9% 0.1% 0.0% 67 Indianapolis, IN 118,172,690 22.7% 77.0% 0.3% 0.0% 

34 Tampa, FL 105,724,445 25.4% 46.9% 0.1% 27.6% 31 Miami, FL 115,359,576 12.6% 82.4% 0.2% 4.8% 

49 Cincinnati, OH 105,299,346 15.3% 57.2% 0.2% 27.3% 84 Baton Rouge, LA 113,542,169 10.4% 57.2% 0.0% 32.4% 

141 Denver 103,412,461 22.3% 77.3% 0.4% 0.0% 109 Duluth, MN 106,618,720 34.1% 10.8% 0.0% 55.1% 

Rail 

Pct. 

Truck 

Pct. 

Air 

Pct. 

Water 

Pct. 

Source: TRANSEARCH 2000.


Figure 2.14 

Passenger Train Density 

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

Figure 2.15 

Rail Equipment is Becoming Taller and Heavier 

Plate “C” Boxcar 

(15’-6” tall) 

Doublestack Well Car 

(20’-8” tall) 



Figure 2.16 

Regional Map of Tallest Allowable Car Types by Line 


Figure 2.17 National Rail Freight Network 

Tons Moved 

Tons (millions) 




Figure 2.18 

Railroad Capital Spending 

Class I Net Funds Available for Reinvestment versus Capital Expenditures 

Dollars (in Billions) 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

Funds Shortfall 

Net Funds Available for Reinvestment 

Capital 

Expenditures 

•Investors are 

impatient with 

the railroads’ 

failure to earn 

cost of capital 

•Debt is rising 

•ROI must improve 

with real growth 

or with reduced 

investment 

1 

0 

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 

Source: American Association of Railroads. 

Table 2.2 

Efficiency of Railroads versus Diesel Trucks 

Mode Fuel Infrastructure Cost Safety 

Railroad 

455 ton-miles per 

gallon 

216 million annual tons 

per track 

2.7¢ per ton-mile 0.61 fatalities per 

billion ton-miles 

Truck 

105 ton-miles per 

gallon 

37.8 million annual tons 

per lane 

5.0¢ per ton-mile 1.45 fatalities per 

billion ton-miles 

Sources and Notes: 

1 Theoretical capacity calculation assuming maximum density freight use. 

2 Based on latest available American Association of Railroads (AAR) and American Trucking Associations 

national revenue and volume statistics. 

3 Based on 2001 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and AAR safety statistics. 

4 “Incidents” include all non-fatal injuries and property damage accidents. 



2.3.4 Transportation Network Constraints 

Physical and regulatory constraints limit the movement of trucks (and particularly interstate 

standard trucks) within the region, and often result in the diversion of this traffic 

from regional highways to local arterials. 5 For example, only a single designated route 

(I-95/GWB to I-495) exists through the region for national standard 53-foot long tractor 

trailers. Many parkways that provide key connecting routes between interstate highways 

and key freight facilities (such as the Grand Central and Belt) prohibit most or all classes 

of trucks. The resulting diversion of trucks from regional to local facilities, combined with 

the need to access major freight hubs, often results in conflict within the region between 

two important goals: maintaining efficient freight movement and community quality of 

life. The major arterial network is shown in Figure 2.19. 

Figure 2.19 

Major Arterial Network 

(trucks 

prohibited) 


5 

Interstate standard trucks are tractor-trailer combinations with trailers 53 feet long, nine feet 

wide, and 14 feet high. 



2.3.5 Insufficient System Redundancy and Security 

Although security issues were not the primary focus of this study, concerns associated 

with the security of the region’s transportation infrastructure have been paramount since 

the events of September 11. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, freight transportation 

was impacted as a result of the immediate systemic effects of the events including 

road closures, the Single-Occupant Vehicle (SOV) ban in the southern half of Manhattan, 

random truck inspections at the entrances to bridges and tunnels, the grounding of the 

nation’s air carriers, and heightened enforcement activities at international gateways. 

However, the freight infrastructure and service system recovered relatively rapidly. 

Truck volumes on bridges and tunnels returned to pre- September 11 levels (accounting 

for the impact of the regional recession), and rail and air shipments resumed earlier patterns. 

Roadways reopened and operational restrictions were eased or eliminated. 

Shippers and receivers reported no material shortages or operational disruptions except 

those immediately related to the events of September 11. No major changes were made in 

warehouse and distribution facility security. Trucking companies reported that they had 

established a new equilibrium within one to two months of the events. “Fuel shortages” 

were increased due to both the increased price of fuel and the general cost increase caused 

by increased variability in travel times due to heightened security inspections. The rail 

industry experienced some slow orders and a three-day ban on hazardous materials 

shipments, but otherwise resumed normal operations with increased vigilance and field 

security. 

Several strategies have been suggested for further regional study to improve the current 

situation. One involves developing better staging areas for vehicle inspections at bridges 

and tunnels, none of which were designed to accommodate this activity. Another concerns 

the promotion of regional redundancy in freight movement, with particular concern 

focused on the region’s dependency on the George Washington Bridge for cross-Hudson 

freight movement. Several projects included in this report would address this redundancy 

issue – most particularly the Cross Harbor rail freight tunnel which would create an 

entirely new crossing of the Hudson River for freight, and several proposed 

improvements that together would better enable the Southern Corridor to handle more 

trucks in the event of an interruption in Northern Corridor. Third, continuing to expand 

the region’s robust marine transport system which is presently used primarily to move 

petroleum and other bulk products. 

Several major freight-related security initiatives are being undertaken on the national 

level. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection office within the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) is building on the U.S. Custom’s history of successful partnerships with 

shippers and carriers. Industry partners, many of them part of sophisticated supply 

chains, are working with Customs on deeper integration of security and supply chain 

processes through the Customs Trade Partnership (CT-PAT) Initiative. International governmental 

cooperation is evident in such initiatives as the Smart Border Accord between 

the United States and Canada in which the two countries are testing technology and 

improved processes to enhance security in North America. For railroads, DHS is experimenting 

with x-ray or gamma ray devices to screen containers or cars of moving trains at 



borders to avoid having to stop them. The FHWA and FAA recently participated in an air 

cargo test of an electronic manifest imprinted on a smart card along with the truck driver 

biometric information so that the load could be electronically cleared upon arrival at the 

air cargo terminal at O’Hare Airport in Chicago. 

Reaping technology benefits from applications such as ITS for freight security also 

requires consistent and coherent standards, many of them international. The FHWA’s ITS 

program is pursuing intermodal freight standards in several areas such as data exchange 

and radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking devices such as truck transponders and 

container seals. The I-95 Corridor Coalition did a comprehensive scan of Federal and state 

security policies, programs, and initiatives for truck trailer and container security. 

AASHTO has assembled a committee and published initial guidance for state DOTs on 

security for transportation infrastructure. 

2.3.6 Conclusion 

The problems identified above will worsen as the region continues to grow and prosper if 

action is not taken to fix them. Despite the recent recession and the aftermath of 

September 11, strong economic growth is still forecast for the region over the next 25 

years. An efficient transportation system is essential to achieve this growth, provide economic 

opportunity for the region’s residents, encourage businesses to locate and expand 

in the region, and to enhance the region’s preeminence in such fields as finance, technology 

and the arts. 

The actions identified in the roadmap were analyzed for this project by means of limited 

quantitative and qualitative methods as described in more detail in Section 3.0 More 

extensive analyses are being undertaken by project proponents. Based on the analyses 

conducted for this project or those analyses already conducted by project proponents, the 

identified actions could be expected to meet the following plan objectives: 

• Reduced future rate of growth in truck volumes on some roadways; 

• Improved traffic operations on some roadways; 

• Increased rail mode share in the region; 

• Improved environmental quality; and 

• A more efficient and cost-effective freight delivery system. 

It is unrealistic to expect that any single project or set of projects could solve all of the 

challenges associated with regional freight movement and traffic congestion in such a 

dense, mature region. 

This section of the Plan has provided basic information on freight characteristics. It also 

has described the challenges the region faces to improve the freight system. Section 3.0, 

Potential Strategies and How They Were Evaluated, and Section 4.0, Strategies of the 

Regional Freight Plan, discuss, explore, and report on the evaluation of potential actions 

that could address the issues discussed above. 



3.0 Potential Strategies and How 

They Were Evaluated 

This section describes how the alternatives selected for analysis were developed, the 

evaluation criteria used, and the geographic organization of the evaluation. 

Figure 3.1 shows the process by which the study was conducted. 

Figure 3.1 

Study Process 

Task 1 

Task 2 

Task 4 

Task 5 

External/ 

Internal Scan 

Existing System 

•Infrastructure 

•Operations 

•Markets 

Needs Assessment 

•Infrastructure 

• Mobility 

• Safety 

Improvement 

Identification 

• Economic Growth 

•Quality of Life 

Community Outreach 

Task 6 

Assessment 

•Planning 

•Physical 

• Technical 

• Environmental 

Task 7 

Financing 

and Cost 

Task 8 

Implementation 

Program 

•Need 

• Feasibility 

• Short-Term 

•Mid-Term 

• Long-Term 



Strategies were identified for the Plan through the following process: 

• A public forum was held to solicit a broad and varied list of improvements. Further 

input was obtained from NYMTC’s Freight Transportation Working Group (FTWG); 

• NYMTC’s member agencies, as represented by its Program, Finance and Administration 

Committee (PFAC), generated a working list of candidate freight strategies and actions 

to test; and 

• Actions were separated into short-term solutions with an implementation timeframe 

roughly corresponding to the planning horizons of the MPO’s current Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP) and the state’s State Transportation Improvement 

Program (STIP) planning horizons: (one to three years); mid-term solutions of three to 

10 years; and long-term solutions of more than 10 years. 

To facilitate technical analysis, strategies were initially grouped into three sets of “alternative 

packages” with a common functional theme, as shown in Figure 3.2. The three alternatives 

were: 

• Policy and operational projects for both highway and rail; 

• Capital-intensive rail projects; and 

• Capital-intensive highway projects. 

Figure 3.2 

Regional Freight Plan Approach 

Base 

Case 

Policy and 

Operations Package 

Rail 

Package 

Highway 

Package 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Compare to Base Case 

Analyze Using Performance Measures 

Future Scenario 

Modeling 



Actions were analyzed based on the following two categories of impact criteria, which 

reflect the implementation of project goals and objectives: 

• Transportation criteria, including vehicle miles of travel, hours of travel, modal diversion, 

and a planning-level assessment of local traffic operations. Impacts were disaggregated 

by subregion, vehicle type, and time of day. Where a specific physical 

change in the roadway network was proposed and sufficiently defined, the impact 

was assessed using the NYMTC Best Practices Model (BPM). In other cases, qualitative 

assessments or analyses prepared by strategy proponents were used to assess the 

likely impacts on highway and/or railroad operations. 

• Non-transportation criteria, including impacts on the environment, and on local 

communities, economic development, regional connectivity, project feasibility (physical 

and institutional), and use of/dependence on emerging technology. The environmental 

and community assessment involved a scan of sensitive environmental conditions 

within likely project boundaries using existing sources of data, including geographic 

information system (GIS) maps and project assessments done by proponents. Economic 

development and connectivity were evaluated together by assessing the potential of 

projects to improve regional connectivity to major freight hubs. Project feasibility was 

assessed by reviewing existing sources regarding physical feasibility and applying the 

team’s knowledge of institutional issues in the region. Some actions addressed new 

technology applications rather than physical changes to the infrastructure. 

The analysis focused on specific travel corridors used for freight. Figure 3.3 illustrates 

the corridors used by trip purpose. Figure 3.4 shows that the greatest number of 

freight trips on the highway system occurs around the region’s core. As discussed in 

Section 2.0, congestion and physical barriers on the region’s highway system represent 

a major obstacle to efficient freight movement. However, as shown in Figure 3.5, 

physical and operational constraints in the region’s rail corridors are no less of a 

problem, so that in most cases rail is not a viable alternative to roadway transport. 

From a regional freight movement perspective, addressing deficiencies in these core 

corridors is the most critical task for a regional plan and is thus the focus of this report. 

Deficiencies in cross-harbor goods movement are addressed by proposed improvements 

on the Northern (I-95) and Southern (I-278) Crossing corridors of the Hudson 

River, which link the region to most North American destinations west of the Hudson. 

Deficiencies in intraregional goods movement are addressed by improvements to the 

two Eastern corridors (I-278 and I-678) and a South Brooklyn corridor, which connect 

the two Hudson River crossings and link the region’s core to Long Island and other 

easterly points such as New England. 

Priority corridors are as follows: 

• The Northern Crossing corridor, consisting of the George Washington Bridge, Cross 

Bronx and Major Deegan Expressways; 

• The Southern Crossing corridor, consisting of the Goethals Bridge or Outerbridge 

Crossing, Staten Island Expressway, and Verrazano Narrows Bridge; 



• The Eastern (I-278) corridor, consisting of the Gowanus and Brooklyn/Queens 

Expressways; 

• The Eastern (I-678) corridor, consisting of the Van Wyck and Clearview Expressways; 

and 

• The Southern Brooklyn-Queens corridor to JFK Airport and surrounding industrial 

areas, consisting of several arterials and parkways (Atlantic Avenue, Linden 

Boulevard, and the Belt Parkway) and the Bay Ridge Branch of the Long Island Rail 

Road. 

In the analysis presented in Section 5.0, the Eastern (I-678) and South Brooklyn-Queens 

corridors were combined into a single JFK Airport/Industrial Access corridor. 

Tables 4.1 through 4.4 in the next section cross reference the evaluation criteria, the identified 

deficiencies, and proposed actions. 

Figure 3.3 

Corridors Analyzed by Trip Purpose 



Figure 3.4 

Regional Highway Corridors 

Scaled by Current Freight Volume 



Figure 3.5 

Regional Rail Corridors 



4.0 Relationship among Performance 

Measures and Deficiencies and 

Recommendations 

The project team developed performance measures to provide benchmarks for assessing 

strategies and actions. Tables 4.1 through 4.4 provide a connection among the evaluation 

criteria, the identified deficiencies, and the first round of possible solutions. They are 

organized by the four primary modes – highway, rail, water, and air. This plan addresses 

deficiencies “outside the gate,” although other deficiencies were originally identified. Possible 

projects and solutions were later refined to reflect the projects included for analysis 

in Section 5.0. The deficiencies of the freight system were identified through the findings 

of several earlier reports: Internal and External Scan (Task 1), Existing Conditions report 

(Task 2) and Needs Assessment (Task 4). The deficiencies analysis served as a baseline for 

developing and testing alternatives. 

The tables in this section are intended to show, in outline form, the evolution of project 

definitions over time, and their relationship to performance measures and deficiencies. 

The solutions listed represent an initial menu of actions, prior to evaluation. For current 

project definitions and detailed descriptions of benefits and impacts, turn to Section 5.0. 



Table 4.1 

Highway Analysis Summary Table 

Task 4 Task 5 

Performance Measures Current/Anticipated Deficiencies Possible Solutions/Alternatives 

Operating Measures: 

• Truck volumes (with respect to total 

traffic volumes) 

• Levels of service (LOS) for major truck 

routes 

• Average speed 

• Toll costs 

• Curbside space management (loading/ 

unloading zones, parking enforcement, 

etc.) 

• Accident and incident rates 

Physical Measures: 

• Height clearances 

• Turning radii 

• Access width 

• Weight limitations 

• Truck delays at railroad/highway grade 

crossings 

• Usable shoulders 

• Highway design standards, 

acceleration/deceleration lanes, truck 

climbing lanes, etc. 

• Signage; and 

• Curbside capacity (for truck operations) 

Operating Limitations: 

• Chronic congestion on many regional 

roadways 

• Poor signage along surface truck routes 

• Bridge and tunnel crossings act as 

“choke points” for regional traffic 

Limitations on Truck Access: 

• “Gaps” in regional freight network 

caused by truck-excluded roadway 

segments (ex., Grand Central Parkway) 

• Legally and illegally parked vehicles on 

already narrow and difficult to navigate 

surface streets 

Limited Truck Routes: 

• Trucks with 53-foot trailers are prohibited 

from serving destinations within 

New York City 

• Only one truck route within the 

NYMTC region for interstate-standard 

53-foot trailer vehicles serving Nassau 

and Suffolk Counties (New England 

Thruway, Throgs Neck Bridge, 

Clearview Expressway, Long Island 

Expressway) No limited-access, highspeed 

truck corridors in Manhattan 

(except the one-mile Trans-Manhattan 

Expressway) 

• Gowanus Expressway/Brooklyn 

Queens Expressway/Long Island 

Expressway is the only east-west truck 

route between Southern Brooklyn and 

Queens/Long Island 

• Long Island Expressway is the only 

east-west highway open to trucks 

serving Nassau and Suffolk Counties 

• Cross-Bronx Expressway is the only 

east-west arterial for the Bronx 

Infrastructure Improvements: 

• Eliminate vertical clearance limitations 

on highways that cause truck diversion 

to local streets (e.g., on BQE at Brooklyn 

Bridge) 

• Improved signage 

• Create new roadway links to access 

major truck trip generators (e.g., direct 

Hunts Point connection to the Bruckner 

Expressway) 

• Reconstruct bottleneck interchanges to 

improve flow (e.g., Highbridge 

Interchange) 

• Develop new east-west connector 

serving South Brooklyn and JFK 

Airport, on either new right-of-way or 

modification of existing routes to permit 

trucks 

• Develop continuous service roads along 

major highways to provide alternate 

truck routing in case of incidents 

• Increase capacity and lane widths at the 

Goethals Bridges 

• Improve capacity on the Tappan Zee 

crossing 

• Improve Sheridan-Bruckner Interchange 

and access to Hunts Point Market. 

Policy Improvements: 

• Investigate the use of key parkway 

segments by smaller trucks and vans to 

eliminate gaps in the truck network 

(e.g., one-mile pilot study of the Grand 

Central Parkway between the Triboro 

Bridge and BQE) 

• Allow smaller commercial vehicles to 

use parkways during nighttime hours 

(9:00 or 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) 

Note: The tables in this section are intended to show, in outline form, the evolution of project definitions over time, and their relationship 

to performance measures and deficiencies. The solutions listed represent an initial menu of actions, prior to evaluation. For 

current project definitions and detailed descriptions of benefits and impacts, turn to Section 5.0. 



Table 4.1 

Highway Analysis Summary Table (continued) 

Task 4 Task 5 

Performance Measures Current/Anticipated Deficiencies Possible Solutions/Alternatives 

Geometric Constraints: 

• Low clearances in Hudson River tunnels, 

and at highway overpasses 

• Substandard turning radii, lane widths, 

and grades at key points of regional 

network 

• No shoulders 

• Short acceleration and deceleration 

lanes 

Poor Connections to Regional Freight 

Facilities: 

• Only one limited access route to JFK 

Airport (Van Wyck Expressway) 

• Trucks must use local streets extensively 

to access regional rail and port 

terminals (e.g., limited and difficult 

connections between Brooklyn waterfront 

freight terminals and the 

Gowanus Expressway truck route) 

Policy Improvements (continued): 

• Coordinate toll pricing management 

plan to influence truck route and timing 

choice (this management plan should 

address all vehicles, not just trucks) 

• Strictly enforce current truck routes and 

restrictions 

• Allow trucks to use regional highoccupancy 

vehicle (HOV) lanes during 

nighttime hours 

• Encourage off-peak deliveries in the 

central business district (CBD) through 

a combination of incentives and curbside 

regulations 

• Review/update current truck route 

network to maximize commercial accessibility 

and minimize community 

impacts 

• Review truck length and weight restrictions 

for U.S. compatibility 

Better manage commercial curbside space 

Operating/Technology Improvements: 

• Accelerate expansion of Intelligent 

Transportation Systems (ITS) 

• Target roadway geometry improvements 

at the most critical locations 

• Improve signage for truckers 

• Improve coordination between private 

logistics and public ITS systems 






Table 4.2 

Rail Analysis Summary Table 

Task 4 Task 5 

Performance Measures 1 Current/Anticipated Deficiencies 1 Possible Solutions/Alternatives 

Rail Freight Traffic Levels: 

• Rail carloads exchanged with 

East-of-Hudson origins/ 

destinations 

• Container or trailer groundings 

in the East-of-Hudson 

region 

Rail Freight Levels of Service: 

• (Proprietary information, may 

be difficult to acquire) 

Rail Freight Market Share: 

• Rail as a percentage of total 

regional freight traffic 

Rail Freight Competition: 

• Number of competing carriers 

(preserving service options 

through future mergers) 

Rail Terminal Access: 

• Number of access modes 

(truck, barge/ferry) 

• Number of alternative access 

truck routes 

• Connection time/distance to 

nearest limited-access highway 

or mainline rail head 

• Average cost of dray 

operations 

Congestion Issues that Limit Potential 

Traffic Levels: 

• Scheduling conflicts with passenger 

rail service in East-of-Hudson market 

• Emerging rail congestion on West-of- 

Hudson rail network 

Operating Restrictions that Limit 

Levels of Service: 

• Clearance restrictions on East-of- 


• Weight restrictions on East-of- 


• Limited freight operating windows 

between passenger service 

Capacity/Infrastructure Deficiencies 

that Limit Market Share: 

• Yard and terminal capacity limits 

growth 

• Lack of an efficient cross-Hudson rail 

link 

• Heavy taxation on railroad property 

in New York State limits railroad 

investments in rights-of-way 2 

Limited Rail Terminal Access: 

• Hunts Point, Harlem River, Fresh 

Pond, and 65 th Street rail yards have 

poor highway access that requires 

trucks to travel extensively on local 

roads 

• Trucks serving proposed Pilgrim 

intermodal terminal will need direct 

access to LIE to avoid use of local 

streets 


• 17’ 9” TOFC vertical clearance program: 3 

- Metro North Hudson Line (underway) 

- To Fresh Pond yard and Long Island Bay 

Ridge Line in Brooklyn 

- To Pilgrim State Hospital site 

• 20’ 8” East-of-Hudson double-stack vertical 

clearance program on all major rail lines 

• Create sufficient lateral clearances in keeping 

with AAR envelopes, paying extra attention to 

electrified third rails and station platforms on 

LIRR and MNR lines 

• Increase weight limits on select railroad lines 

(ongoing) 

• Improve West-of-Hudson rail line and terminal 

capacity (ongoing) 

• Increase East-of-Hudson terminal capacity 

(ongoing) 

• Develop new intermodal rail terminal at 

Maspeth, Queens (Phelps-Dodge) and Pilgrim 

State Hospital (Long Island) 

• Construct a permanent Cross-Hudson freight 

rail connection 

• Provide direct truck access from proposed 

Pilgrim intermodal terminal to the LIE 


• Support the East-of-Hudson Rail Freight 

Operation Task Force (EOHRFOTF) 

• Monitor impacts of toll pricing on river crossings 

and rail mode share to shift discretionary 

traffic away from the most congested periods 

• Eliminate or reduce railroad taxation to spur 

railroad investment in infrastructure 

improvements 


• Continue coordination between passenger and 

freight rail operations, particularly on the 

Hudson Line and LIRR 

• Revitalize cross harbor car floats as a near-term 

solution to improved cross-Hudson 

connectivity 

• Restore freight service to Staten Island 

1 Performance Measures and Deficiencies identified here cover all aspects of the rail transportation system. However, in keeping 

with the scope of the Regional Freight Plan, the focus of subsequent project tasks was on deficiencies related to groundside access. 

2 Issue has subsequently been resolved. 

3 Canadian Pacific equipment requires 17’ 9” clearance. 






Table 4.3 

Port Analysis Summary Table 

Task 4 Task 5 


Capacity: 

• Actual throughput (total and per 

acre) 

• Actual throughput as a percentage 

of theoretical “maximum 

practical capacity” by functional 

component of each terminal 

(wharf and crane operations, storage, 

gate) 

Operations: 

• Average cargo dwell time 

• Hours of terminal operation 

• Utilization of storage (highversus 

low-density) 

Port Terminal Access: 

• Number of access modes (truck, 

rail, barge/ferry) 

• Rail barge mode share 

• Number of alternative access 

truck routes 

• LOS on major truck access routes 

• Access to on-dock rail 

• Connection time/distance to 

nearest limited-access highway or 

mainline rail head 

• Average cost of dray operations 

Capacity Shortfalls: 

• Forecasted shortfall of container 

terminal capacity by 2005 

• Forecasted shortfall of auto terminal 

capacity by 2005 

• Insufficient marine terminal land 

area for forecasted demand 

Operations: 

• Currently satisfactory, but the following 

operational criteria could be 

improved to meet increased 

demand: 

• Reduced cargo dwell time 

• More efficient cargo storage and 

yard management 

• Increased use of non-truck modes 

(rail and barge/ferry) 

• More efficient truck gates and information 

systems 

Poor Connections to NYMTC Port 

Terminals: 

• Limited truck infrastructure constrains 

truck access options 

• Regional toll infrastructure (particularly 

at Howland Hook) impacts 

access decisions and dray 

operations 

• Brooklyn port connections use 

narrow, winding, and congested 

local streets, which creates a bottleneck 

to efficient freight movement 

• No access to on-dock rail at any 

port terminal in NYMTC region 

(although access is planned for 

Howland Hook) 

• Poor rail connections to national rail 

infrastructure limit attractiveness of 

efficient rail/port exchange 


• Increase availability of “ExpressRail” style ondock 

rail and expand West-of-Hudson intermodal 

rail yard capacity 

• Develop Port Ivory Site as an on dock rail facility 

for Howland Hook 

• Consider on dock rail at South Brooklyn Marine 

Terminal 

• Improve NYMTC port terminal connections to 

regional rail network 

• Reactivate Staten Island’s North Shore Line and 

Arlington Yard to provide rail service to 

Howland Hook terminal via the Chemical Coast 

Line 

• Use revitalized First Avenue rail line to connect 

South Brooklyn Marine Terminal to the Bay 

Ridge Line 

• Construct cross-harbor rail tunnel 

• Improve truck circulation and port access 

• Construct New Port Newark exit on the New 

Jersey Turnpike 

• Construct “Portway” in northern New Jersey 

• Improve the Goethals Bridge crossing 

• Add direct port access ramps or truck lane as 

part of a Gowanus expressway reconstruction 


• Combat “freight sprawl” by adopting land use 

policies that encourage warehouse and distribution 

center development in the existing metropolitan 

area 


• Use dedicated “inland distribution networks” to 

move port commodities through limited terminal 

space rapidly and efficiently 

• Use information systems to manage terminal 

resources: 

- Coordinate empty container supply to avoid 

excessive stacking of empties 

- Schedule container pickups or use incentive 

pricing to manage gate traffic and boxmoving 

resources 

- Fully implement PANYNJ’s FIRST program 

1 Performance Measures and Deficiencies identified here cover all aspects of the marine transportation system. However, in 

keeping with the scope of the Regional Freight Plan, only the deficiencies related to groundside access were developed through 

subsequent project tasks. 






Table 4.4 

Airport Analysis Summary Table 

Task 4 Task 5 


Capacity: 

• Aircraft parking 

• Airfield capacity 

• Warehouse capacity 

Operations: 

• Availability/efficiency of Federal 

Inspection Services (FIS) 

• Tug distance to aircraft parking ramp 

Airport Access: 

• Number of alternative access truck 

routes 

• Connection time/distance to nearest 

limited-access highway or CBD 

• Average cost of dray operations 

Limited Capacity: 

• Heavy airfield congestion at JFK 

Airport, one of 15 major national 

airports cited by the FAA for 

significant delays; significant 

congestion also exists at 

LaGuardia 

• Aircraft parking and warehouse 

capacity are in high-demand, but 

not yet identified as significant 

capacity limitation 

Constrained Landside Access: 

• Constrained surface access to 

JFK currently is the most significant 

air freight deficiency 

• Heavily congested Van Wyck 

Expressway is the only major 

truck access route (Nassau 

Expressway also provides limited 

access) 

• No regional truck routes provide 

for goods delivery to LaGuardia 

Airport 

• Limited Hudson River capacity 

constrains truck traffic 

connecting Newark Liberty 

International Airport and 

Manhattan 


• Investigate the construction of a new facility 

or upgrade existing arterials to create an 

east-west truck route from the South 

Brooklyn area to JFK 

• Improve key Hudson River crossings to 

facilitate access to Newark Liberty 

International Airport 

• Increase capacity or improve congestion 

management on the Van Wyck Expressway 

• Investigate development of a truck ferry 

service connecting Manhattan to JFK to 

provide an alternative access route for truck 

serving downtown locations 


• Permit trucks to use sections of parkways or 

other truck-excluded routes to access 

regional airports. For example: 

- Grand Central Parkway between the 

Triboro Bridge and the BQE 

• Permit small trucks and vans in HOV lanes 


• Develop a regional airport access plan that 

will be responsible for defining and 

addressing key airport access issues for each 

airport 

• Tailor land side access to complement the 

operating niche of local airport resources, 

including JFK, LaGuardia, Islip, Newark, 

and White Plains airports. 

• Improve operations of loading and 

unloading zones in Manhattan to facilitate 

efficient delivery of air dependent courier 

packages 

1 Performance Measures and Deficiencies identified here cover all aspects of the air transportation system. However, in keeping 

with the scope of the Regional Freight Plan, only the deficiencies related to groundside access were developed through subsequent 

project tasks. 






5.0 Strategies of the Regional 

Freight Plan 

This section contains the NYMTC Regional Freight Plan’s recommendations. The recommendations 

are summarized in Table 5.1, organized by project goals, and in Table 5.2, 

organized by the regional deficiencies outlined in Section 2.3. Table 5.1 provides a complete 

outline of each recommendation, including benefits, corridor impacts, responsible 

agency, timeframe, next steps, and capital costs (where an estimate is available). Table 5.2 

links each action to a specific deficiency or deficiencies in the regional freight network. 

This section is organized as follows: 

• Project goal to be achieved; 

• Strategy to support that goal; and 

• Actions (specific projects) to achieve the strategy. 

Section 5.0 provides a framework for future actions. It completes the iterative process that 

began with the description of the freight system, the formation of goals that help define a 

healthy system, the development of performance criteria, the identification of possible 

solutions, and an evaluation of the solutions. Finally with this material, it concludes with 

the elaboration of a program that builds upon the previous steps in the process by identifying 

follow-up activities and responsible organizations, as well as the timeframe within 

which they are to be accomplished. 


Table 5.1 

Actions by Goals and Strategies 


1. Improve transportation 

of freight by 

removing burdensome 

government 

regulations and 

restrictions 

A. Improve management 

of truck routes 

Complete NYCDOT 

Truck Route 

Management Study 


connectivity and 

reduced community 

impacts 

Citywide NYCDOT Short Complete “Citywide 

Truck Route 

Management and 

Community Impact 

Study” 

N/A 

Assess alternatives for 

providing greater 

access to national standard 

53’ long, 102-inch 

wide tractor trailers 


connectivity 

Northern 

Southern 



NYSDOT 

NYMTC 

NYCDOT 

PANYNJ 

Short 


feasibility study 

N/A 

B. Improve the management 

of commercial 

vehicle loading 

and unloading zones 

Expand the commercial 

parking program in 

Manhattan and further 

assess impacts 

75 percent of trucks 

finish delivery within 

first hour – suggests 

VMT/VHT reduction 

Manhattan NYCDOT Short Expand program 

boundaries; continue 

to assess 

impacts 

Revenue will 

cover capital cost 

C. Expand the application 

of ITS to commercial 

vehicle 

operations 

Automate commercial 

vehicle permitting, 

credentialing and 

enforcement 


and safety 

leading to reduced costs 

and travel time 

All 

NYSDOT 

NYSTA 

Short 

Implement program 

under development 

and assess impacts 

$3.5 M 

Expand Integrated 

Incident Management 

System in NYC area 

Accelerated incident All 

response time to reduce 

non-recurring congestion 

and improve public 

safety 

NYSDOT 

NYCDOT 

MTA 

NYPD 

Short 

Proceed with multiagency 

expansion as 


$2.5 M for the SIE 

NYCOEM 

Provide real time traveler 

information to 

commercial vehicle 

operators 


leading to 

reduced costs and 

travel time 

Northern 

Southern 

I-95 NE 

Thruway 

NYSDOT 

NYCDOT 

PANYNJ 

Short 

Coordinate program 

development with 

I-95 Corridor 

Coalition 

N/A 

I-87 NYS 

Thruway 

Western

Table 5.1 

Actions by Goals and Strategies (continued) 



with value pricing 

of toll facilities 

Reduced peak period 

congestion 

All 

NYSTA 

PANYNJ 

MTA 

NYSDOT 

Short 


and 

analysis 

Complete Off-Peak 

Delivery Study 

Costs to be 

recovered from 

tolls 

2. Improve the physical 

infrastructure of the 

transportation system 

for freight 

related transport 

between shipping 

and receiving points 

A. Use marine connections 

to enhance 

access to key 

distribution points 

PIDN – Transport port 

containers by barge and 

rail to out-of-region 

transshipment facilities 

1,256,356 TEUs moved 

by rail/barge instead of 

truck 

Northern 

Southern 

I-95 NE 

Thruway 

I-87 NYS 

Thruway 

PANYNJ 

Short to 

mid 

Assess impact of 

early deployments 

(Albany) and 

expand as planned 

$490 M 

Western 

Assess feasibility of 

regional truck ferries 

Reduced truck traffic on 

roads 

TBD 

NYMTC 

NYSDOT 

Short 


Feasibility Study 

N/A 

PANYNJ 

NJTPA 

NJDOT 

B. Use rail connections 

to enhance access to 

key distribution 

points 

Restore service on 

Staten island railroad 

Travis Branch – 16,000 

carloads/year 

Howland Hook ondock 

rail – 20,000 rail 

cars/year 

Southern 

PANYNJ 

NYCEDC 

Short 

Implement existing 

plans 

$263 M 

Improve First Avenue 

rail tracks in South 

Brooklyn waterfront 

Support bi-level auto 

carrier port – 81,000 

tons 

Southern NYCEDC Short Implement as 


$17 M

Table 5.1 




of overall move- 

EoH rail service 

A. Reduce barriers to 

ment of freight in the 

region by encouraging 

multimodal 

shipment 

Provide a minimum of 

17’ 9” TOFC clearance; 

eliminate weight and 

clearance restrictions on 

plate F cars and tri-level 

auto carriers (19’ 6”); 

expand eventually to 

23-foot double-stack 

clearance 

300,000 to 700,000 tons 

annually to Pilgrim; 


Line 

Western 

Long Island 

Expressway 

I-87 NYS 

Thruway 

I-95 NE 

Thruway 

NYSDOT 

MTA 

PANYNJ 

NYCEDC 

Short to 

mid 


Line Railroad Corridor 


Plan” 



Study” 

Conduct Pilgrim EIS 

$0.75 M for 

Westchester 

Avenue 

Clearance 

(Harlem River 

Yard to Oak 

Point) 

Complete Cross 

Harbor EIS 

Reduce operational 

conflicts between passenger 

and freight service 

on region’s 

railroads 


Line; others TBD 

Western 

Long Island 

Expressway 

I-87 NYS 

Thruway 

I-95 NE 

Thruway 

NYSDOT 

MTA 

PANYNJ 

Short to 

mid 


Line Railroad 

Corridor 


Plan” 



Study” 

N/A 

B. Evaluate the further 

expansion of freight 

yards and warehouses 

(freight 

villages) 


develop Harlem River 

as intermodal yard 

TBD 

Western 

I-684 

I-87 NYS 

Thruway 

NYSDOT 

MTA 

Short to 

mid 


Line Railroad 

Corridor 


Plan” 

N/A 

I-95 NE 

Thruway 


develop Pilgrim State 

Hospital in Deer Park 

as a bulk and/or intermodal 

facility 

300,000 to 700,000 tons Long Island 

Expressway 

NYSDOT 

Mid to long Conduct Pilgrim EIS $87 M

Table 5.1 




develop Phelps Dodge 

site and adjacent areas 

in Maspeth, Queens 

into a bulk or intermodal 

facility 

2.9 to 7.3 million tons of 

intermodal 

Northern 

Southern 

NYCEDC 


Harbor EIS 

Funds included 

under Cross 

Harbor tunnel 


further develop existing 

yard at 65 th Street, 

Brooklyn for bulk, 

intermodal, and/or 

port-related traffic 

TBD 

Northern 

Southern 

NYCEDC 


Harbor EIS 

Advance Port 

Revitalization plans 

N/A 

C. Improve Cross- 

Hudson Rail Service 


Feasibility Study to 

identify additional sites 

Improve existing float 

bridges at Greenville, 

NJ 

TBD All NYMTC Short Conduct Feasibility 

Study 

TBD Southern TBD Short Implement plans as 

designed 

N/A 

$8-10 M 

Assess cross-harbor rail 

freight tunnel 

9.4 to 14.9 million tons Northern 

Southern 

NYCEDC Long Complete Cross 

Harbor EIS. 

Single tunnel 

$4.46 

Double tunnel 

$7.3 B 


and overall 

movement of freight 

in the region by 

expanding alternatives 

for trucks 

A. Improve Northern 


Assess improvements 

to the Highbridge 

Interchange 


on I-95 

Northern NYSDOT Long Complete EIS N/A 


continuous connector 

road system on the CBE 

Improved traffic flow, 

reduced traffic diverted 

to local roadways 

Northern NYSDOT Long Complete “Bronx 

Arterial Needs 

Study” 

N/A 

Improve Sheridan- 

Bruckner Interchange 

Improve access to 

Hunts Point Market 

Northern NYSDOT Long Complete EIS $200 M

Table 5.1 



B. Improve Southern 


Assess upgrading 

crossing at Goethals 

Bridge 


and reduced accidents 

Southern 

PANYNJ 

NYMTC 

Long 

Conduct EIS 


study 

$450-650 M 


continuous bus/HOV 

system on the SIE and 

related improvements 

Increased capacity and 

volume 

Southern 

NYSDOT 

NYMTC 

NYCDOT 

Long 

Conduct EIS 


study 

$500 M 

C. Improve Eastern 

Corridor (I-278) 

Assess removing clearance 

restriction on the 

BQE 

Reduced traffic diverted 

from local roadways 


NYSDOT 

NYMTC 

Long 

Conduct Feasibility 

Study 


study 

N/A 

Assess feasibility of offpeak 

truck use of 

Gowanus HOV lane 


on mainline 


NYSDOT 

NYMTC 

Short to 

long 

Conduct demonstration 

project, 

analyze, and apply 

to Gowanus 

Reconstruction EIS; 

conduct corridor 

study 

N/A 

D. Improve JFK 

Airport/Industrial 

Access Corridor 

Assess options for 

improvements to the 

major routes in the 

corridor 

Improved access to JFK 

and adjacent areas 


South Brooklyn/ 

Queens 

NYSDOT 

NYMTC 

NYCDOT 

Long 

Conduct Corridor 

Study 

Complete S. 

Brooklyn TIS 

N/A 

PANYNJ


Table 5.2 

Actions by Deficiency 

Existing Study 

or Project 

1. Poor Highway Performance 

Highbridge Interchange improvements 

Cross Bronx Expressway Connector roads 


Staten Island Expressway Service Roads 

“Freightways” (Gowanus HOV) 

2. Inadequate Access to Freight Facilities 

Port Inland Distribution Network 

Freight ferries 

Staten Island Railroad restoration 

South Brooklyn track improvements – 1 st Avenue 

Sheridan/Bruckner Interchange – Access to Hunts Point Market 

Freight villages 

JFK Airport corridor improvements 



Commercial vehicle loading zones 

3. Inadequate Infrastructure and Underused Modes 



Reducing rail freight/passenger operational conflicts 

Improve existing floats 

Increase track loading to accommodate 286,000 rail cars 

4. Transportation Network Constraints 

Truck route management study 

Reduce limitations on 53-foot trailers 

Brooklyn-Queens Expressway clearance 

Automated truck permitting and credentialing 

Value pricing 

Integrated Incident Management System 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Need for Improved Security 

“Inside the gate” projects to be addressed by others 



• 5.1 Goal #1 – Improve the Transportation of Freight by 

Removing Burdensome Government Regulations and 

Restrictions 

The recommendations grouped under this goal would change policies that constrain freight 

operations, particularly for trucks. One policy change analyzed earlier in the project – 

reducing the taxation of railroad property by New York State – was subsequently achieved. 

Strategies discussed below include better managing truck routes and loading zones and 

applying intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies to truck operations. 

5.1.1 Strategy 1.A – Facilitate Truck Movements by Better Managing 

Truck Routes 

Action 1 – Complete NYCDOT’s Truck Route Management and Community 

Impact Reduction Study 

Description 

In April 2003, the NYCDOT initiated a study of truck route management across the city. 

The goal of the study is to coordinate engineering, educational, informational, and 

enforcement efforts so that trucks remain on designated truck routes until reaching their 

destination, avoiding residential streets whenever possible. There are two main reasons 

for analyzing and re-evaluating the city’s designated truck routes: 

• The city’s economy has shifted away from a manufacturing base to an information service 

base, and 

• The character of many of the city’s streets and neighborhoods has changed, often from 

predominantly industrial to residential land uses. 

The truck route study has been organized into a number of tasks, including: 

• Identify needs through community, industry-, and business-based assessment of key 

problem areas; 

• Collect and analyze empirical data, including a comprehensive inventory of truck 

routes; 

• Develop a signage program and recommendations on policy and traffic rules, as well 

as an education program; and 

• Develop an improved enforcement strategy. 

The study is expected to result in better signage, improved truck route enforcement, vigorous 

outreach to the trucking industry, and better management of the New York City’s 

truck route network. 



Transportation Impacts 

Adjustments to the truck route network can offer transportation benefits in all corridors 

by ensuring that trucks move along the routes that are best able to accommodate them, 

consistent with community needs. The impacts will not be known until NYCDOT develops 

and analyzes recommendations. 

Other Impacts 

Improvements in regional connectivity and economic development could result from 

more efficient truck routes. Changing truck routes could raise major community issues by 

potentially opening up currently restricted routes to truck travel. In some cases, physical 

barriers such as low clearances may be present. 

Responsible Organization/Action Plan 

1. NYCDOT – Complete study, revise truck route network and regulations accordingly, 

and implement management plan. 

2. NYCDOT – Following completion of the study, monitor industry compliance and 

agency enforcement and assess impacts on traffic operations, local communities, 

freight carriers, and shippers and receivers. For example, do general traffic operations 

improve Is freight movement enhanced Are truck impacts on local communities 

reduced 

Action 2 – Address Alternatives for Providing Greater Access to National 

Standard 53-Foot Tractor Trailers on the Region’s Highways 

Description 

Presently, as shown in Figure 5.1, only one route is designated across New York City for 

through movements of interstate tractor-trailer equipment. This is the Northern Crossing 

corridor of the Hudson River, including the George Washington Bridge and I-95 Cross 

Bronx Expressway (CBE), the Throgs Neck Expressway (I-695) and Throgs Neck Bridge 

(I-295) connecting to the Long Island Expressway (I-495). Interstate standard trucks are 

currently not allowed to serve origins or destinations within the City of New York. 

Creating additional routes for interstate standard trailers could be achieved by a 

combination of removing physical constraints (such as the low clearances on the 

Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (BQE) and by allowing trucks on key connecting parkways 

such as the Grand Central – which also would require removal of physical constraints. 

Some of these options are discussed in more detail under specific projects below. 



Figure 5.1 Fifty-Three-Foot Tractor-Trailer Routes 




Expanding the interstate truck network could significantly benefit the corridors that serve 

major freight facilities and movement, such as the Northern Crossing, Southern Crossing, 

Eastern (I-278 and I-678) corridors. Assigning interstate standard truck routes to key 

freight generators in New York City such as JFK Airport, Hunts Point Market, and the 

Brooklyn Waterfront could shift goods movement in high-volume corridors from many 

small trucks to fewer, larger, more efficient trucks. This would reduce the number of 

truck trips generated by these key regional facilities. 

Other Impacts 

Expanding the interstate truck network likely is to have positive environmental and economic 

benefits, although such expansion could face physical and institutional barriers to 

the extent that large truck traffic is introduced onto roadways where it currently is 

restricted. Given adequate roadway geometries, however, the reduction in truck trips 

could offset the presence of larger trucks and yield benefits to the surrounding communities. 

The project has potentially major benefits to regional connectivity by providing 

higher capacity connections to major regional freight facilities. The project does not 

directly involve the introduction of new technology. 

Responsible Organizations/Action Plan 

NYMTC, NYSDOT, NYCDOT, and PANYNJ – Initiate a regional feasibility study through 

NYMTC’s Unified Work Program (UPWP). 

5.1.2 Strategy 1.B – Improve the Management of Commercial Vehicle 

Loading and Unloading Zones 

Action 1 – Expand NYCDOT’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Program 

Description 

A pilot commercial vehicle parking program has been implemented by the NYCDOT for 

Midtown Manhattan to help alleviate traffic congestion caused by double-parked commercial 

vehicles and vehicles using loading zones as long-term parking spaces. As shown 

in Figure 5.2, the program originally covered selected streets between 43 rd and 59 th , and 

between Fifth and Seventh Avenues, and has since been expanded to provide coverage 

from Second to Ninth Avenues. Single-space parking meters were removed and replaced 

with ticket-dispensing muni-meters to provide a commercial vehicle loading zone during 

the busiest hours of the day. Between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, the 

curb spaces are designated for commercial vehicle use only, with parking rates of $2.00, 

$5.00, and 9.00 for one, two, and three hours, respectively. In addition, evening and 

weekend parking rates have been increased from $1.00 to $2.00 per hour in this designated 

area. Payment can be made by using either quarters, dollar coins, or the NYC Parking 

Card – a pre-paid debit card. 



Figure 5.2 NYCDOT Midtown Commercial Vehicle Parking Program 



The NYCDOT Bureau of Parking has the legal authority to implement this program on a 

citywide basis, and is currently studying areas throughout the five boroughs to create 

similar on-street loading zones. 


Post-implementation studies conducted by NYCDOT indicate that the parking occupancy 

on the affected streets has declined from 140 percent to 95 percent during the hours of 

operation, reflecting a substantial decline in the number of double-parked vehicles on 

these cross-streets. In addition, the median curbside occupancy period for commercial 

vehicles in this area has declined dramatically, from 160 minutes to 45 minutes, due to the 

financial incentive provided by the graduated parking rate. While other benefits such as 

improved cross-street travel speeds and air quality improvements have not been quantified, 

anecdotal information provided by NYCDOT suggests that one of the ancillary benefits 

has been a tangible decrease in truck VMT in Midtown Manhattan due to fewer commercial 

vehicles making multiple trips around blocks in search of open parking spaces. 

Other Impacts 

By reducing truck double-parking, idling, and circling for parking spaces, this project is 

likely to have positive environmental and economic impacts primarily in the Manhattan 

Crossing corridor. This will improve regional connectivity. The project has minimal 

physical barriers to implementation, but significant institutional barriers as many commercial 

interests have a stake in parking policy. The project relies heavily on the newest 

parking meter technology, including the use of parking fare cards which trucking and 

delivery companies view as a convenient innovation that enhances the management of 

their fleet operations. 

Responsible Organizations/Action Plans 

1. NYCDOT – Implement the expanded program by 2005, consistent with findings of initial 

analysis. 

5.1.3 Strategy 1.C – Expand the Application of Intelligent Transportation 

Systems (ITS) to Commercial Vehicle Operations 

Action 1 – Automate the Commercial Vehicle Permitting, Credentialing, and 

Enforcement Systems 

Description 

Many initiatives are being undertaken in the region to improve traffic movement, safety 

and security through the implementation of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). For 

example, in recent years the PANYNJ has developed a web site to aid shippers and 

carriers in tracking the movement of their cargo through the Port of New York/New 

Jersey. The following projects are in the planning stages. 



NYSDOT is re-engineering and automating the processes for New York State DOT’s 

Divisible Load and Special Hauling permit programs. New processes have been developed 

to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Permit Section. These processes 

include the increased integration of structural engineering analysis and the use of graphical 

mapping software using New York’s extensive GIS. The system will be integrated 

with a centralized electronic payment component currently being selected by NYSDOT. It 

also will be integrated with the New York State Police Information Network (NYSPIN) for 

enforcement verification and violation management. This will result in the inclusion of 

1-D bar codes on all issued credentials and make possible field verification of valid permits 

by state troopers with hand held devices that incorporate bar code readers. The 

readers will be synchronized with active permit data on a daily basis. 

The New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) is developing a new Special Hauling 

Permit System. Motor carriers and permit services now have the ability to apply for and 

receive special hauling permits via the Internet or using the PC-based version of Permit CS . 

Once applications are received at NYSTA, the Permit CS system automatically screens the 

application; verifies the safety of the route requested by the motor carrier; calculates and 

collects permit fees; and provides an automated interface to the Bridge Department, 

NYSTA’s accounting system, enforcement officials, and NYSTA’s toll facilities for issuance 

and verification of permits in the field. 


Automation is expected to enhance roadway safety and security by permitting more thorough 

screening of vehicle and driver credentials and more targeted enforcement activities 

on high-risk operators. This can reduce truck-related crashes and non-recurring congestion, 

improve revenue collection, and increase commercial vehicle and DOT productivity. 

Other Impacts 

By improving the flow of truck traffic, automation is likely to lower truck-generated pollutants, 

reduce the time and cost of truck deliveries, and improve truck delivery reliability. 

It is non-corridor-specific, but can improve regional connectivity in general. There are 

no significant physical barriers to automating commercial vehicle permitting, credentialing, 

and enforcement systems, but institutional barriers relating to industry and agency 

acceptance of new technologies are potentially high. 


NYSDOT and NYSTA – Complete statewide permitting system improvements already 

under development. 



Action 2 – Expand the Region’s Integrated Incident Management System (IIMS) 

Description 

The Integrated Incident Management System (IIMS) is an incident/emergency management 

project that enhances the coordination of multi-agency incident/emergency 

response and management. IIMS operates over an interconnected network linking emergency, 

public safety, public works, transportation operations centers, and mobile emergency 

responders with each other and with the incident scene. The IIMS initiative would 

be incorporated in a larger Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS); NYSDOT’s 

existing ATMS covers 40 to 50 miles of roadway in New York City, which represents 

approximately 20 percent to 25 percent of the roadway-miles in NYSDOT’s jurisdiction in 

Region 11. The system is managed from NYSDOT’s Joint Traffic Operations Center in 

Long Island City and includes: 1) instrumentation to measure vehicular traffic volumes 

and speeds; 2) monitoring equipment for incident detection and standard emergency 

protocols for incident response; and 3) variable-message signs to warn motorists of 

changes in travel conditions. 

The existing ATMS covers four roadway segments: 

1. Van Wyck Expressway (I-678) from Grand Central Parkway to Shore Parkway; 

2. Long Island Expressway (I-495) from Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (I-278) to Grand 

Central Parkway; 

3. Cross Bronx Expressway from Harlem River to Bruckner Expressway (I-278); and 

4. Segments of the south end of the Gowanus Expressway (I-278). 

NYSDOT is now in the process of expanding ATMS coverage to include the entire length 

of the Staten Island Expressway (I-278), and is planning a future expansion to cover additional 

roadways in the Brooklyn and Eastern Queens subregions, including the Belt and 

Grand Central Parkways, and the Clearview, Long Island, and Nassau Expressways. 


By reducing incident response time and providing motorists with real time information on 

roadway conditions, the IIMS likely will help to reduce non-recurring congestion. 

Other Impacts 

The IIMS can improve safety and security by improving the ability of multiple agencies to 

coordinate their response to incidents. 


NYSDOT – Continue planned expansion to additional facilities and agencies, including 

NYCDOT, NYCOEM, FDNY, NYPD and MTA. 



Action 3 – Develop a Corridor-Wide Commercial Vehicle Real Time Traveler 

Information Network 

Description 

Truckers traveling long distances often have a difficult time obtaining traveler information 

in states and urban areas along their routes. The development of a multi-state information 

system using a variety of distribution means, including the Internet, would enable truckers 

to better avoid congested areas. The I-95 Corridor Coalition conducted an operational 

test of this concept called “Fleet Forward” several years ago, but has not moved to fully 

implement it. 


A multi-state information system would improve traffic flow for trucks and all vehicles. 

Other Impacts 

By improving the flow of truck traffic, this alternative is likely to have positive environmental 

and economic impacts. It can improve regional connectivity particularly along the 

I-95 corridor and related routes, including the Northern and Southern Crossings, I-95 NE 

Thruway, I-87 NYS Thruway, and Western Circumferential. There are no significant 

physical barriers to implementation, but institutional barriers involving industry and 

agency acceptance of emerging technologies are potentially high. 


NYSDOT, PANYNJ, and NYCDOT – Work with the I-95 Corridor Coalition on the continued 

development and implementation of a larger regional system of real time traffic information 

targeted at freight carriers. 

Action 4 – Pricing Strategies 

Description 

Several agencies manage key regional highways, bridges and tunnels, including the 

PANYNJ, the MTA, the NYSTA, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA), and the City 

of New York. The region’s toll facilities are shown in Figure 5.3. In recent years, the 

PANYNJ, the NJTA, and the NYSTA have implemented value pricing toll structures, 

including some special provisions for commercial vehicles, with the goal of shifting some 

truck traffic out of peak periods and encouraging the use of electronic toll collection 

devices (such as E-ZPass) that facilitate traffic movement at toll plazas. Many experiments 

in value pricing are taking place in the United States and around the world. London, for 

example, has instituted a cordon charge for all vehicles entering the CBD during peak 

periods. Access to Manhattan Island, which is possible only by bridge, tunnel, or ferry, 

already is subject to a form of CBD pricing but not all entry points are tolled. The option 

also exists to impose peak-period pricing on all vehicles, not just trucks. 



Figure 5.3 Regional Toll Facilities 



Three variable toll programs currently are in place in the region: 

1. The PANYNJ currently charges variable toll rates at all of the Hudson River and Staten 

Island bridge and tunnel crossings. Trucks using E-ZPass are charged $6.00 per axle 

during the peak periods (6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 7:00 p.m.), $5.00 per axle during 

designated off-peak hours (9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to midnight), and $3.50 

per axle during overnight hours (midnight to 6:00 a.m.). 

2. The NYSTA has used a variable toll system on I-287 in Rockland and Westchester 

Counties since 1997. Commercial vehicles using E-ZPass receive an off-peak discount 

of up to 50 percent depending on the time of day. Peak hours are 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. for 

the Tappan Zee Bridge (southbound toll only) and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. for the Spring 

Valley Toll Plaza (northbound toll only). During shoulder periods tolls vary in 15- 

minute increments from the peak rate to the off-peak rate. 

3. The NJTA offers a volume discount for commercial fleet owners whose trucks use 

E-ZPass during off-peak hours (all hours of the day other than from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. 

and from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.). This system is used primarily to maximize revenue from 

high-volume commercial carriers during off-peak periods by providing a reduced toll 

to carriers who might otherwise use parallel non-toll roadways. 


Some analysis has been done on the impact of value pricing in the region relative to specific 

agencies and/or facilities, but the specific impact of variable tolls is often difficult to ascertain. 

The New Jersey Turnpike has seen a general increase in truck traffic over the long term, 

but the Turnpike Authority has not specifically quantified the impact of its volume 

discount program on truck volumes. The PANYNJ has initiated an assessment of truck 

volume trends at its six interstate crossings. 

The NYSTA conducted comprehensive interviews with motor carriers to ascertain their 

response to the I-287 variable toll program. It was determined that offering discounts for 

off-peak travel would impact commuter patterns more than truck travel patterns. This 

was primarily because: 1) most carriers can pass along increased shipping costs to their 

customers, and 2) toll costs are relatively small for most truck trips as a percentage of 

other operating costs. Carriers wishing to cut costs (by saving time) generally adjust their 

shipping schedules in response to congested conditions on the I-287 corridor regardless of 

any toll considerations. 

Other Impacts 

By spreading out peak-period traffic, pricing strategies are likely to have transportation 

and environmental benefits. These projects face minor physical barriers to implementation 

and some institutional barriers due to the concerns of the shipping industry regarding 

the potentially adverse economic impact of discouraging deliveries at certain times of the 

day, and the concerns of toll authorities that these programs be revenue neutral. Pricing 

strategies do not directly address issues of connectivity. They rely heavily on the latest 



fare collection technology, such as E-ZPass, which enables toll authorities to adjust fares 

by time of day. 


1. PANYNJ and NYSTA – Continue efforts to collect data and analyze the impacts of 

programs in place, including impacts on peak and off-peak traffic operations, 

trucking companies, shippers, receivers, and toll revenue. 

2. PANYNJ, NYSTA, and MTA – Investigate the potential for further refining existing 

programs or developing new demonstration projects to shift peak demand to offpeak 

periods. 

3. NYSDOT – Complete “Off-Peak Delivery Study” to assess the economic benefits and 

impacts on shippers, receivers, and carriers of shifting more deliveries to off-peak 

periods. 

• 5.2 Goal #2 – Improve the Physical Infrastructure of the 

Transportation System for Freight-Related Transport 

between Shipping and Receiving Points 

This goal involves pursuing of strategies that seek to improve rail and marine connections 

to key distribution points. 

5.2.1 Strategy 2.A – Use Marine Connections to Enhance Access to Key 

Distribution Points 

Action 1 – Expand the Port Inland Distribution Network 

Description 

For several years, PANYNJ has been developing and refining a concept known as the Port 

Inland Distribution Network (PIDN). The overall goal of the PIDN is to reduce the percentage 

of container traffic that moves to and from the Port of New York and New Jersey 

(PONYNJ) by truck, eliminating or delaying the need for highway improvements. At a 

program level, the PIDN aims to establish rail and barge services between the PONYNJ 

and a series of “dense trade clusters” generally located within a 75- to 400-mile radius. 

Table 5.3 shows PIDN dense trade clusters served by PONYNJ, with freight volumes 

measured in 20-foot equivalent units (TEU). Detailed data supporting the PIDN concept 

was developed for the PANYNJ by Moffatt and Nichol Engineers. 



Table 5.3 PIDN Dense Trade Clusters Served by PONYNJ 1 

PIDN Trade Cluster 

1998/1999 

PONYNJ 

TEUs (Total) 

2020 

PONYNJ 

TEUs (Total) 

2020 TEUs 

via PIDN 

PIDN Mode 

Worcester and Framingham, MA 2 294,938 646,244 379,990 Barge/Rail 

Hanover, MD and Wilmington, DE 257,122 563,386 255,644 Barge 

Reading, PA and Camden, NJ 286,586 627,946 284,249 Barge/Rail 

Pittsburgh, PA 48,890 107,125 44,729 Rail 

Hartford and Springfield, CT 47,914 104,986 69,940 Barge 

Rochester, NY 47,394 103,846 43,372 Rail 

Albany, NY 24,574 53,844 122,508 1 Barge 

Buffalo, NY 33,012 72,334 30,202 Rail 

Syracuse, NY 28,115 61,604 25,722 Rail 

Total – Dense Trade Clusters 1,068,545 2,341,315 1,256,356 

1 Data includes projection for domestic (non-PONYNJ) intermodal TEUs. 

2 Container service for northern New Jersey railheads to a rail terminal at Worcester, Massachusetts is 

already in operation and handling approximately 17,000 containers per year. 

Source: Moffatt and Nichol, Port Inland Distribution Network Feasibility Study, 2000, updated in 2003. 

The various services are in different stages of development: 

• Pittsburgh – Rail service was initiated by Norfolk Southern in 2001. 

• Albany – Columbia Coastal Transport was selected to operate the barge service to 

Albany, which was initiated in April 2003. Weekly service is now being provided. 

• Bridgeport – A roll-on/roll-off container barge operation is planned to begin at the 

Port of Bridgeport in 2004. This would serve the Hartford/Springfield cluster. 

• Reading and Camden – A South Jersey (Camden) business plan is being developed to 

further quantify the market, service requirements, and investments associated with 

this service. The business plan for service at Camden is expected to be completed in 

2004. 

• Port of Providence – The Port of Providence is under consideration for implementation 

in late 2004 or early 2005. This service target is northern Rhode Island and southeastern 

Massachusetts market clusters. 

• Rail service to Buffalo by CSX is under consideration for implementation in 2004. 




PIDN annual volume targets for the year 2020 are forecast to be 1,256,356 TEUs moved by 

barge or rail. This is the equivalent of roughly 12.9 million tons or 585,000 trucks removed 

from the highway system each year. 

Other Impacts 

There are demonstrable environmental benefits to PIDN, since increasing goods movement 

by rail or barge would not contribute to highway congestion. There also likely are 

economic benefits, since PIDN would promote freight-related businesses at dense trade 

clusters, all of which are outside the region. Fully implementing PIDN can improve 

regional connectivity for the region’s ports, particularly on the Northern and Southern 

Crossings, I-95 NE Thruway, I-87/NYS Thruway, and Western corridors. There are no 

major physical barriers to implementation, but engaging multiple state and local jurisdictions 

along the I-95 corridor may prove a major institutional challenge, particularly since 

operating subsidies will be necessary at start-up. The project often involves a novel application 

of water and rail transport technology to create new intermodal and inter-port service 

relationships beyond what is currently used in the region. 

Responsible Organization/Action Plans 

1. PANYNJ – Determine volume of tonnage moved on Albany barge service and estimate 

reduction in freight truck volume. 

2. PANYNJ – Work with prospective feeder port/rail partners to establish a viable business 

plan for the introduction of PIDN services. Assess impacts as in #1 above. 

Action 2 – Freight Ferries 

Description 

Several proposals have been advanced in recent years by both public and private interests 

for regional truck ferry services, including service between JFK Airport and Hunts Point 

Market in the Bronx and South Amboy in New Jersey. No operator has yet committed to 

begin service. Services are also being considered to move domestic freight via freight ferries 

between northern New Jersey and Boston, and between the New York metropolitan 

region and ports at key market locations between Connecticut and Florida. 


Extensive analysis has not been undertaken of potential truck ferries. 

Other Impacts 

Truck ferries generally have a positive impact on the environment because they remove 

trucks from regional highways. However, ferries may have a negative impact on communities 

near terminals where truck traffic and ferries are concentrated. The major challenges 

of truck ferries are institutional: attracting potential operators and estimating costs 

and benefits. Which corridors are impacted depends on the specific services developed. 



Action Plan/Responsible Organizations 

NYMTC, NYSDOT, PANYNJ, NJTPA, and NJDOT – Conduct a regional feasibility study 

of the potential of truck ferries. 

5.2.2 Strategy 2.B – Use Rail Connections to Enhance Access to Key 

Distribution Points 

Action 1 – Restore the Staten Island Railroad 

Description 

The PANYNJ and the City of New York, through the NYCEDC are working together to 

restore rail freight connections between Staten Island and the national rail freight network 

in New Jersey. As shown in Figure 5.4, this project includes rebuilding a portion of 

Arlington Yard, reactivating the Arthur Kill Lift Bridge, extending the Travis Branch to 

the Fresh Kills Transfer Facility, building a direct connection between the former Staten 

Island Railroad and the Chemical Coast Line in New Jersey, and expanding the rail facilities 

for intermodal marine/rail traffic at Howland Hook by creating a new intermodal 

yard at Port Ivory. These improvements will serve two functions: 

• The Travis Branch will restore rail service to the local industrial base on Staten Island 

anchored by the Fresh Kills Transfer Facility; and 

• On-dock intermodal marine/rail service (direct transfer of containers from ship to rail 

with no grounding in between) will enable the Howland Hook Marine Terminal to be 

served by rail. 


• The Staten Island projects are estimated to generate 16,000 rail carloads per year on the 

Travis Branch and 20,000 rail carloads per year at Howland Hook. 

Other Impacts 

The Staten Island projects involve retaining and/or restoring industrial and freight transportation 

activities in areas in which they have long operated. No major environmental 

impacts are expected. To the extent that enhanced rail service diverts truck traffic from 

Staten Island, these projects can have environmental benefits. The projects can generate 

economic benefits at industrial sites in Staten Island. They can improve connectivity 

between Staten Island and the New Jersey rail hubs along the Southern Crossing corridor. 

There are no major physical or institutional barriers to implementation; the projects would 

advance on-dock rail transfer technology in the region. 


PANYNJ and NYCEDC – Implement Staten Island railroad improvements as planned in 

2004-2005 and assess impacts. 



Action 2 – Improve Rail Tracks on First Avenue in the South Brooklyn Waterfront 

Description 

NYCEDC will make improvements to the rail tracks on First Avenue in the South 

Brooklyn waterfront district. Upgraded tracks in this heavily industrialized section of 

Brooklyn could increase the use of rail freight and reduce the number of trucks using the 

Gowanus Expressway or Third Avenue. The new track configuration, in conjunction with 

a refurbished South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, also would facilitate the development of 

an auto marine terminal, which could be served by bi-level auto-carrying rail cars. These 

improvements include: 

• Facility improvements at South Brooklyn Marine Terminal (SBMT), including on-dock 

rail and related track improvements; 

• Elimination of an S-curve between First and Second Avenues on 41 st Street; new rail on 

39 th Street for future South Brooklyn rail access to the First Avenue rail yard; and street 

track improvements for direct rail access to the SBMT along First Avenue from 41 st 

Street to 39 th Street; 

• Improvements to Brooklyn Army Terminal tracks; and 

• Rail improvements on First Avenue between the First Avenue Rail Yard at 51 st Street 

to the entrance of the Brooklyn Army Terminal. 


NYCEDC estimates that a South Brooklyn auto marine terminal would generate approximately 

81,000 tons of traffic. 

Other Impacts 

There are no other significant impacts. 


NYCEDC – Complete plan as designed in 2004. 

• 5.3 Goal #3 – Improve the Reliability and Overall 

Movement of Freight in the Region by Encouraging 

Expedient and Multimodal Shipment of Freight 

This goal focuses on overcoming the three major types of barriers to expanded rail service 

in the East-of-Hudson region: physical and operational constraints; limited yard capacity; 

and limited cross-Hudson service. 



5.3.1 Strategy 3.A – Reduce Physical Barriers to East-of-Hudson Rail 

Service 

Action 1 – Provide a Minimum of 17’ 9” Trailer-on-Flatcar Clearance on the Eastof-Hudson 

Rail Network and Reduce Other Physical Barriers 1 

Description 

Providing 17’ 9” trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC) service to the entire East-of-Hudson freight rail 

network, and eliminating weight and clearance restrictions for plate F cars (17-foot) and 

tri-level auto rack cars will enable the region to accommodate most modern rail 

equipment, including bulk and single-stack container-on-flatcar (COFC) cars. This could 

be a possible step toward eventually providing double-stack clearance to a minimum of 

20’ 8” or a maximum of the newest national standard 23 feet, although no formal plans 

beyond TOFC clearance have been advanced or funded by the operators and owners of 

the affected railways. 

The initial steps, as shown in Figure 5.5, would include the following five railroad segments: 

• CSX Selkirk Yard (near Albany) via the CSX/MNR Hudson Line and the Oak Point 

link to Harlem River Yard in the Bronx. Rail traffic entering the region today from 

West-of-Hudson origins must cross the Hudson at Selkirk because, with the exception 

of limited carfloat service, cross-harbor connections are lacking. The MNR Hudson 

Line is the only route into the region. Although a temporary fix to achieve TOFC 

clearances on one track was achieved in summer 2003, as of December 2003 TOFC traffic 

had still not moved on the line due to institutional issues regarding the drayage of 

trailers between Harlem River Yard and Hunts Point. A contract has been let by 

NYSDOT and MNR to achieve a permanent fix at the Sugarhouse utility in Yonkers. 

PANYNJ funding has been identified for additional work to achieve TOFC clearance 

on two tracks for the entire route, but no contract has yet been let. 

• Access to Hunts Point Market in the Bronx from Harlem River Yard. Rail access to 

this major freight hub is constrained by two overhead bridges at East 149 th Street and 

at Legget Avenue near Oak Point Yard. PANYNJ funding has been identified to 

remove these constraints. The route between Oak Point yard and Hunts Point Market 

is grade-separated where it crosses Amtrak’s Metropolitan Division. As such, there 

are no vertical clearance issues with Amtrak’s overhead electrification. In addition, 

the Bruckner-Sheridan Project EIS is evaluating alternatives to access Hunts Point 

Market from the Harlem River Yard. These alternatives do not impact the existing 

bridge at East 149 th Street and Legget Avenue. Once of these modified alternatives 

(3B) calls for new railroad tracks, another (3A) for an exclusive truck route, and a third 

(3C) is for mixed traffic via Port Morris. 

1 

Canada Pacific trains require 18-foot clearances. 



Figure 5.5 East-of-Hudson Rail Freight Barriers 



• Harlem River Yard to Fresh Pond Yard in Queens via Freemont Secondary Track. 

Once TOFC freight enters the region via the Hudson Line, it is constrained by clearance 

restrictions beyond the Bronx on the LIRR. This line is presently not cleared for 

TOFC at two and possibly three locations west of Sunnyside Junction. There are no 

current plans to achieve this clearance. 

• Fresh Pond Yard to proposed Pilgrim State Hospital Yard in Deer Park via LIRR 

mainline. The LIRR mainline must be upgraded – possibly by adding a new freightonly 

track – to make the development of an intermodal yard at Pilgrim State Hospital 

viable. This issue will be addressed in the Pilgrim EIS. 

• Fresh Pond Yard on the Bay Ridge and Montauk (west) branches of the LIRR to 65 th 

Street yard in Brooklyn and to a proposed new yard at Maspeth, Queens to be constructed 

as part of the Cross Harbor tunnel. Clearance constraints on the Bay Ridge 

and Montauk (west) branches of the LIRR preclude TOFC service from reaching the 

existing intermodal yard at 65 th Street in Brooklyn and the proposed yard at Maspeth, 

Queens (the abandoned Phelps Dodge site). The Maspeth site would be the main 

intermodal yard servicing the Cross Harbor tunnel (see Section 5.3.3), but even without 

a tunnel a smaller yard also could service TOFC traffic coming from the north via 

the Hudson Line, absent the existing clearance constraints. The Cross Harbor EIS will 

examine means of achieving double-stack clearance on these lines, which would be a 

more expensive project than just achieving TOFC clearance. 


In June 2001, NYSDOT completed a feasibility study of developing a rail yard at Pilgrim. 

The study found that with relatively minor line improvements on the LIRR mainline, an 

annual market of 300,000 tons of bulk transload traffic could be developed by 2005. With 

major infrastructure improvements, such as an additional track on the main line, the study 

forecast an additional market of 700,000 tons of intermodal cargo by 2020. Further analysis 

will be conducted by NYSDOT and PANYNJ in the “Hudson Line Railroad Corridor 

Transportation Plan,” “East-of-Hudson Rail Freight Study,” and “Pilgrim EIS.” 

Other Impacts 

No significant environmental impacts are associated with improving clearance on the 

Hudson Line to Harlem River. The impacts of further clearance to Pilgrim will be determined 

by the Pilgrim EIS. To the extent that these projects divert freight movement from 

truck to rail, they can have positive environmental impacts. They are not likely to have 

major economic impacts, except in the immediate vicinity of the yards serviced by the new 

lines. Physical barriers to implementation include the cost of upgrading rail infrastructure 

to accommodate modern rail equipment. The primary institutional barrier is coordination 

among multiple agencies and operators. These improvements can strengthen regional 

connectivity in the Western, I-95 NE Thruway, I-87 NYS Thruway, and Long Island 

Expressway (I-495) corridors. These improvements involve introducing an intermediate 

stage of railroad technology to the region – TOFC clearance of 17’ 9” – still below the 

national double-stack clearance standard of 23 feet. 




1. NYSDOT/MNR/PANYNJ – Complete contract to remove clearance constraints at the 

Sugarhouse bridge; initiate work to achieve full TOFC clearance on two tracks on the 

Hudson Line. 

2. NYSDOT – Complete “Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan,” implement 

findings, and monitor impacts on freight tonnage on the Hudson Line. 

3. NYSDOT and PANYNJ – Use the $40 million Rail Capital Improvement Program to 

support implementation. 

4. PANYNJ – Complete “East-of-Hudson Rail Freight Study.” 

5. NYSDOT – Conduct Pilgrim EIS. 

6. NYCEDC – Complete Cross Harbor EIS. 

Action 2 – Reduce Operational Conflicts Between Passenger and Freight Services 

on the Region’s Railroads 

Description 

Freight access to the region from west-of-Hudson locations today is seriously constrained 

by the heavy volume of passenger trains, particularly on the Hudson Line and LIRR 

mainline. Freight service is generally limited to nighttime operations. This is a barrier to 

the growth in rail volume, in particular time-sensitive intermodal shipments. With the 

exception of cross-harbor floats, the Hudson Line is the only route by which rail service 

can enter the region today. The MTA and MNR (the owner of the Hudson Line south of 

Poughkeepsie) and CSX Railroad (the owner of the northern half of the line) currently are 

working with other users of the Hudson Line and NYSDOT to develop an improvement 

plan. The LIRR mainline issue will be addressed as part of the Pilgrim intermodal yard 

EIS. 


The “Hudson Line Railroad Transportation Plan” for the rail segments between Albany 

and the Bronx is developing infrastructure requirements to satisfy the operational needs 

of all users of the line, including MNR, Amtrak, CSX, and CP through 2020. The capacity 

goals include substantial increases in the capacity for freight operations providing sufficient 

line capacity for freight operation to increase from its current three percent of all 

weekday trains to as much as 10 percent of all weekday trains. The plan also calls for 

lifting the current restrictions on daylight operation of freight trains. Forecasts have not 

yet been developed on the volume of freight which could be moved under this operating 

scenario. 

Earlier work conducted as part of the Cross Harbor Freight Movement EIS indicated that 

one additional daily freight train could be accommodated on the Hudson Line with minor 

infrastructure upgrades such as signal improvements. This would result in an increase in 



rail tonnage of 69,000 tons, from the 2.5 million tons currently moved in the region by rail. 2 

However, this analysis was based on the addition of a single additional trip. Several more 

trips are envisioned by the plan described above. 

Other Impacts 

No other impacts are expected, assuming additional freight movement on the Hudson 

Line and LIRR mainline does not interfere with passenger service. Regional connectivity 

could be improved in the Western, I-95 NE Thruway, I-87 NYS Thruway, and Long Island 

corridors. 


1. NYSDOT, Metro North Railroad, CSX, and Amtrak – Improve operating window for 

East-of-Hudson rail access based on outcome of “Hudson Line Railroad Transportation 

Plan.” 

2. PANYNJ – Complete “East-of-Hudson Rail Freight Study.” 

5.3.2 Strategy 3.B – Evaluate the Further Expansion of Freight Yards and 

Warehouse/Industry Clusters (Freight Villages) 

Action 1 – Develop Freight Villages at Critical Rail Links 

Description 

At its most basic level, a freight village is a fusion of land use and transportation planning 

which clusters freight-dependent companies around a concentration of shared transportation 

infrastructure. To the extent that freight village development patterns allow rail or 

waterborne transportation to serve major industries more effectively, the general public 

benefits from reduced truck traffic and cost of goods and services. Thus, for the purposes 

of this discussion, a freight village is defined as an intermodal terminal around which 

clusters of related businesses such as warehousing and distributing centers arise. 

Privately developed freight and logistics clusters are increasingly drawn to suburban 

locations because scarce land and high real estate costs generally make large urban warehousing 

developments infeasible. From a public sector transportation standpoint, urban 

freight villages offer a more efficient development pattern because urban distribution and 

warehousing centers are more conducive than suburban sites to a rail- or water-oriented 

distribution pattern and allow for a greater reduction in truck VMT. From an economic 

development perspective, urban freight villages offer an opportunity to transform derelict 

industrial sites or brownfields (which typically have rail access) into high value-added 

employment and commercial centers. 

2 

Reebie Associates. 



The major obstacle to constructing urban freight villages is acquiring sufficient land. Most 

suburban freight villages are larger than 125 acres. Such a large parcel of contiguous 

vacant property is difficult to assemble in most urban areas, even when brownfields are 

available for re-use. However, the public sector can play an important role by sponsoring 

economic development initiatives such as local redevelopment zones, in-place industrial 

parks, and brownfields redevelopment programs targeting freight villages. 

Four potential freight village sites identified to date are summarized below and shown in 

Figure 5.6. 

1. Maspeth, Queens – Development of this site centers on the vacant 27-acre Phelps Dodge 

industrial site adjacent to the Montauk (west) Branch of the LIRR and in the center of a 

large complex of warehousing, distribution, and manufacturing facilities. Connections 

to the regional highway system are excellent. Rail connections are adequate for bulk 

goods but not for intermodal traffic such as TOFC due to clearance restrictions and 

operational conflicts. Marine access via Newtown Creek also is possible. Further 

development and expansion of this site into an intermodal yard is addressed below in 

regard to the Cross Harbor rail tunnel. 

2. South Brooklyn Waterfront, Brooklyn – Further development could be encouraged at this 

site by improving access to the Gowanus Expressway and to the Brooklyn rail 

infrastructure. 

3. Harlem River Yard, The Bronx – This site enjoys the strongest rail and highway connections 

of the sites under consideration, as evidenced by the large number of existing 

warehousing and distribution facilities in the surrounding area. However, the Harlem 

River Yard lacks available land for core rail facilities. This shortage has become more 

pronounced due to an influx of non-transportation-related development at the yard itself. 

4. Pilgrim State Hospital Site, Suffolk County – A freight village on this site, while suburban 

in character, would function to some degree as an urban village because truck access 

to central Long Island is constrained by the need to pass through the severe congestion 

of New York City. The site has ready access to the Heartland Industrial Park, and the 

potential exists for further industrial development of the state hospital site. Other land 

uses in the area are primarily residential, but impacts could be buffered by the large 

amount of available land at the complex. The major drawback to this site is the heavy 

passenger train traffic on the LIRR mainline, which limits the size and frequency of 

possible rail deliveries to Pilgrim. 


It is difficult to analyze the impacts of freight village projects in isolation from the related 

projects that would provide the rail and/or highway connections needed to make the 

freight villages a success. To the extent that these projects encourage the regional diversion 

of freight shipments from truck to rail or water modes, they can improve traffic 

operations. Although increased truck traffic in the vicinity of the yards could impact local 

traffic, most truck movements tend to occur outside peak commuter hours. Consolidating 

a variety of freight shipment and industrial activities within a single site could reduce the 

need for intermediate truck trips. 



Figure 5.6 Potential Freight Villages 



Other Impacts 

The development impacts of a large intermodal yard at Maspeth are addressed in 

Section 5.3.3 below related to the Cross Harbor rail tunnel. An initial small bulk-only yard 

could be accommodated on the existing Phelps Dodge site. The Harlem River Yard is 

located within the coastal zone and non-freight transportation interests are competing for 

the site. The 65 th Street yard is part of an existing and extensive former transportation hub 

that has retained limited transportation functions over the years. The Pilgrim site is 

isolated from surrounding residential areas with potentially excellent rail and highway 

access. 

The regional environmental impact of the four freight village projects would generally be 

positive, although increased local truck and rail activities could have some negative 

impact. The local economic impacts would be positive due to the development of new 

freight and industrial activity. Freight villages can contribute to regional connectivity in 

almost all corridors. The greatest physical barrier to creating freight villages is the lack of 

available land for new facilities. In addition, community attitudes toward the introduction 

of new industrial activities tend to be mixed. The projects involve the introduction of 

more modern intermodal technology to the region. 


1. NYSDOT, MTA, Amtrak, CSX, and PANYNJ – Assess potential development of 

Harlem River yard as an intermodal terminal. 

2. NYSDOT – Conduct the Pilgrim EIS. 

3. NYCEDC – Complete Cross Harbor EIS (re: 65 th Street and Maspeth). 

4. NYMTC – Conduct a regional feasibility study of other yard or water access opportunities 

(such as Newtown Creek and the South Brooklyn waterfront), building on 

NYMTC’s 2002 inventory. 

5.3.3 Strategy 3.C – Improve Cross-Hudson Rail Service 

Action 1 – Improve Existing Float Services between New Jersey and Brooklyn 

Description 

Bulk cargo is floated across the harbor between Greenville Yards in Jersey City, New 

Jersey, where it interchanges with national rail carriers, and the 51 st Street Yard (Bush 

Terminal) in Brooklyn, where it is delivered locally or interchanged with the New York 

and Atlantic Railroad. The volume of this cargo has dwindled in recent years. In 1998, in 

an effort to make the existing float service more attractive, the NYCEDC opened two new 

float bridges at the 65 th Street Yard in Brooklyn. The Cross Harbor EIS describes the construction 

of new float bridges at the Greenville Yards as part of the Transportation System 

Management (TSM) Alternative. This plan would require the active support of New 

Jersey transportation agencies and the PANYNJ. 




While the construction of new float bridges would improve the reliability of float operations, 

as an independent action it is not expected to significantly increase Cross-Hudson 

freight volume. 

Other Impacts 

Few significant environmental impacts are likely to be associated with this project. The 

project can slightly improve regional connectivity in the Northern and Southern Crossing 

corridors. There are no major physical barriers to improving float service. Institutional 

barriers are significant, however, involving coordination across bi-state entities and 

among private railroad operators. The project involves minor upgrades to the current 

level of car float technology. 


To be determined – Resolve outstanding bi-state coordination issues and cross-harbor carrier 

issues. 

Action 2 – Complete Cross Harbor Tunnel and Ancillary Facilities DEIS 

Description 

The Cross Harbor Freight Movement DEIS being conducted by the NYCEDC includes an 

extensive analysis of future freight movement demand in the NYMTC region and an 

assessment of potential expansion of rail freight use resulting from the construction of a 

direct rail freight connection across the harbor. Though the DEIS has not been released at 

this writing, findings and methodology were made available to NYMTC for the purposes 

of this report. According to the DEIS, the Cross Harbor Tunnel investment program consists 

of three parts, as shown in Figure 5.7: 1) constructing a rail freight tunnel linking 

northern New Jersey and the East-of-Hudson region; 2) constructing an East-of-Hudson 

intermodal terminal to receive added rail traffic; and 3) making rail line improvements to 

support these facilities. Each part is described in detail below. 

1. Cross Harbor Rail Freight Tunnel Construction – A tunnel under the harbor would link 

the 65 th Street Yard in Brooklyn and the Greenville Yard in northern New Jersey. Single 

and double tunnel systems are under consideration. Each tunnel would contain 

one track. An alternative alignment across the north shore of Staten Island is 

expected to be ruled out in the DEIS. 

2. Maspeth Intermodal Terminal Construction – The proposed Maspeth terminal would be 

the hub for direct containerized intermodal service using a cross harbor tunnel. The 

terminal would handle traffic diverted to rail by new services made possible by the 

cross harbor rail tunnel. The Maspeth terminal would be connected to the tunnel via 

a two-track, freight-only route from the tunnel portal via the Bay Ridge and Montauk 

(west) Branches of the LIRR. 



Figure 5.7 Proposed Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel 



3. Double-stack, Weight, and Lateral Clearance Improvements on Major East-of-Hudson Freight 

Lines – The Cross Harbor EIS has considered line improvements to provide a minimum 

of 22-foot six-inch vertical clearance between the tunnel portal at 65 th Street and 

Maspeth Yard, and 286,000 pound per axle weight compliance for the tracks. The 

cross-harbor tunnel system also would provide a wide load route clear of third rail 

and passenger platform obstructions. 


The Cross Harbor Tunnel DEIS includes an extensive analysis of future freight movement 

demand in the NYMTC region and an analysis of potential expansion of rail freight use 

resulting from construction of a direct rail freight connection across the harbor. According 

to the DEIS, a single Cross Harbor tunnel would divert 9.4 million tons of freight from 

truck to rail in the forecast year of 2025, while a double tunnel would divert 14.9 million 

tons. In addition to the traffic diverted from trucks, it is estimated that logistical and 

competitive considerations would lead four million tons of rail traffic that would otherwise 

be routed via Metro-North’s Hudson Line to be rerouted through the tunnel. 3 

According to the Cross Harbor DEIS, this diversion would improve freight movement in 

the Northern and Southern Crossing corridors but have more limited impacts in other corridors. 

The DEIS forecasts that this diversion would reduce the future (2025) volume of 

large trucks using the Hudson River crossings by 500,000 to 1,000,000 annual one-way 

freight truck trips (single versus double tunnel) compared to the future No Build. This is 

because shipments diverted from truck by enhanced rail service could cross the Hudson 

River by rail, and would not appear as truck trips on the river crossings. On the George 

Washington Bridge, the reduction in annual one-way freight truck trips would be 141,000 

to 333,000 (single versus double tunnel); and on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, 259,000 to 

333,000. Annual truck vehicle miles of travel in the region would be reduced by 41 to 62 

million miles out of a future total of 1.4 billion miles. 

To put these numbers in perspective, in 2025, freight trucks are forecast to represent 

almost seven percent of all truck trips in the region. However, freight trucks are generally 

the largest tractor-trailers which have the greatest impact on congestion, safety, roadway 

wear and tear, and emissions. Many of the other trucks are small pick-ups, vans, and 

utility vehicles. 

The single tunnel system will reduce the combined volume of freight trucks on the George 

Washington and Verrazano Narrows bridges by 400,000 one-way trips, plus another 

100,000 on the Tappan Zee Bridge and other Hudson River crossings. In 2025, the GWB 

and VNB are forecast to have a combined freight truck volume of about 4.7 million trips. 

3 

With the tunnel, CSX and CP would find that for much western traffic more frequent direct 

service through the new tunnel from Chicago would be superior to less frequent connecting 

service from Chicago on the Hudson Line with a classification in Albany. With the tunnel, NS 

would be able to compete with CSX for traffic to Long Island and NYC routed through Chicago 

that would otherwise be captive to CSX’s Hudson Line routing to New York City. 



Therefore, the single tunnel system will reduce future freight truck trips on the two 

crossings by 8.5 percent. The double tunnel system will reduce truck trips on the two 

bridges by 666,000 or about 14 percent, plus another 334,000 at the other crossings combined. 

Counterbalancing this regional reduction in freight truck trips, the siting of an intermodal 

yard at Maspeth, Queens will increase the freight truck trips in the vicinity of the Yard. 

Other Impacts 

The tunnels and associated rail improvements involve some physical barriers to construction 

and would result in some adverse environmental impacts, both during construction 

and subsequently in at least the localized area around the improvement. The development 

of an intermodal yard at Maspeth would involve land takings and increased local 

truck traffic but also would generate new business activity in the vicinity. The package as 

a whole, however, is expected to result in significant environmental and economic benefits 

from the regional truck diversion to rail. The projects would improve regional connectivity 

primarily in the Northern and Southern Crossing corridors. The most significant 

institutional barriers are the lack of a dedicated funding source and the difficulty of 

coordinating among bi-state entities and private railroad operators. The projects would 

introduce railroad technology to the East-of-Hudson region that already is common in 

many parts of the country. 


NYCEDC – Complete the EIS. 

• 5.4 Goal #4 – Improve the Reliability and Overall 

Movement of Freight in the Region by Expanding 

Alternatives for Trucks and Other Vehicles 

5.4.1 Strategy 4.A – Address Deficiencies in Select Regional Freight Corridors 

The NYMTC Freight Plan identifies the region’s important highway freight corridors and 

the major deficiencies of each. However it does not include a detailed analysis of each of 

these corridors or recommend specific improvements to address deficiencies. Portions of 

these corridors already are being studied by the agencies concerned. The five core corridors 

focused on this report are: 

1. The Northern Crossing corridor; 

2. The Southern Crossing corridor; 

3. The Eastern (I-278) corridor; 

4. The Eastern (I-678) corridor; and 

5. The JFK Airport and Industrial Access corridors. 



The Plan would be incomplete if it did not recommend next steps for studying each of 

these important corridors in detail. All five experience high levels of congestion throughout 

the day. All five are the subject of major improvement studies. Most of these 

improvements would facilitate the movement of all vehicular traffic – including trucks, 

buses, and autos. The projects identified below would have particular significance for 

regional freight movement. Many are being independently evaluated through their own 

feasibility studies, MISs, and EISs. These studies will provide detailed quantitative analyses 

of the projects’ impacts on traffic congestion and air pollution. 

This section presents the impacts on traffic operations for some of these projects, determined 

by using NYMTC’s Best Practices Model, the regional travel demand model. 

Because a selected group of highway projects, including improvements to all of the corridors, 

was analyzed as part of a single model run, a comparative assessment of the 

improvements to each corridor was not conducted for this report. Nor could all projects 

be evaluated as part of the model run, as the definition of some of the projects changed 

during the course of the study or was insufficiently advanced to support a modeled analysis. 

A qualitative assessment is provided in these cases. Impacts other than direct transportation 

impacts also are qualitatively evaluated. These findings are not intended to be 

definitive, but rather to provide an order of magnitude sense of the potential impacts of 

the projects. 

Action 1 – The Northern Crossing Corridor – Conduct a Regional Analysis 

Description 

The Northern Crossing corridor is one of the most important freight and passenger corridors 

in the New York City region. The corridor extends from the George Washington 

Bridge in the west to the Throgs Neck Bridge in the east. It includes I-95 to the Bronx border 

with Westchester County, and extends south along the Major Deegan Expressway to 

the Triborough Bridge. The corridor includes at least four major bridges and numerous 

large north-south and east-west highways. Some of the region’s busiest transportation 

facilities, and some of the region’s worst traffic congestion, are found in the Northern 

Crossing corridor. The travel markets include trips to Manhattan, the Bronx, Long Island, 

Westchester County, and points further north in New England. The area spans two states, 

includes numerous counties, and contains facilities under the jurisdiction of at least four 

regional transportation agencies. This corridor also includes major rail freight facilities in 

the western and southern Bronx. 

The importance of the Northern Crossing corridor to regional freight movement was 

illustrated previously in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. This corridor, along with the Southern 

Crossing corridor described below, is critical to the cross-harbor movement of goods 

between the region and most of North America. Due to restrictions in the Holland and 

Lincoln Tunnels, the Northern and Southern Crossing corridors are the only two routes 

into the region available to full sized tractor-trailers and hazardous material carriers. 

Only the Northern Crossing permits today’s standard 53-foot trailers. While traffic from 

the north and through traffic seeking to circumvent the region can use the Tappan Zee 



Bridge, this alternative route does not provide a direct routing for trucks entering the 

region from the south and west. 

The following transportation studies already underway in this corridor evaluate specific 

facilities and identify strategies for addressing problems on those facilities: 

• The Highbridge Interchange – NYSDOT is evaluating mid- and long-term improvements 

to the operations of this interchange, where the Major Deegan Expressway 

meets the Cross Bronx Expressway (CBE). Improvements to this interchange could 

have impacts on the George Washington Bridge, the Trans-Manhattan Expressway, 

the CBE and the Major Deegan Expressway. 

• The Bronx Arterial Needs Study – NYSDOT is evaluating the construction of a continuous 

system of connector roads and other arterial improvements in the vicinity of 

the Cross Bronx Expressway. 

• The Bruckner–Sheridan Interchange Study – NYSDOT is evaluating ways to improve 

the operation of these facilities, and in particular, to provide better and more direct 

truck access to the Hunts Point Market in the Bronx to improve freight movement and 

reduce community impacts. 

Both mid- and long-term improvements have been suggested for the Highbridge 

Interchange. In the mid term (three to 10 years), a series of ramp improvements would 

improve access to the Major Deegan Expressway. These improvements would likely 

attract additional volume to the George Washington Bridge without increasing capacity to 

the bridge access routes. In other words, this option would not benefit truck traffic on the 

Northern Crossing corridor. No reconstruction of the interchange is planned in NYSDOT’s 

current 12-year program. There are infrastructure improvements planned and a widening 

of the Alexander Hamilton Bridge as part of a deck replacement project. 

In the long term (more than 10 years), reconfiguration of the Highbridge Interchange 

could involve the construction of new northbound and southbound ramps from the Major 

Deegan Expressway. One possible approach is shown in Figure 5.8. 

As shown in Figure 5.9, improvements to the Cross Bronx Expressway would provide 

continuous eastbound and westbound service roads between Washington Bridge/ 

University Avenue and Hugh Grant circle using new and existing streets. It is assumed 

that the connector roads would serve general-purpose local traffic as well as bus rapid 

transit, diverting truck trips with local origins and destinations from the CBE mainline 

and East Tremont Avenue. Some sections may be reconfigured for buses only. 

An EIS is currently underway for the Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction and 

Direct Access to Hunts Point Peninsula from the expressway system project. This project 

would alleviate congestion on the Bruckner Expressway by relieving a bottleneck near the 

Bronx River that restricts this highway from six to four lanes. Also, this project would provide 

direct access from the expressway system to the Hunts Point Peninsula commercial/ 

industrial area, thus removing trucks from city streets. 



Figure 5.8 Highbridge Interchange Proposed Improvements 




The mid-term improvement to the Highbridge Interchange would not significantly 

improve traffic flow in the Northern Crossing corridor. The long-term improvement 

would be expected to eliminate difficult westbound weave movements and accidents on 

the Alexander Hamilton Bridge, and to relieve congestion on the Highbridge Interchange 

helix ramps, thereby improving traffic flow on the Northern Crossing and the Major 

Deegan Expressway (I-87) corridors. Because the project definition is still evolving, these 

improvements could not be analyzed for this report. 

Local truck delivery traffic would be attracted to the new CBE connector roads from both 

the CBE mainline and East Tremont Avenue, the only viable east-west alternative route 

across the Bronx. The connector roads would gain up to 1,500 truck trips per direction per 

day, of which about half would be diverted from East Tremont Avenue. About 800 nonfreight 

truck trips and about 140 freight truck trips per day would be diverted from the 

CBE mainline. The connector road improvements would have a significant impact on 

freight mobility because of the diversion of truck trips from two heavily congested 

corridors, the CBE mainline and East Tremont Avenue. 

The Bruckner-Sheridan project would improve local access to Hunts Point Market. Since 

the alternative definition has changed since the original analysis was completed for this 

report, regional impacts could not be assessed here. 

Other Impacts 

The projects face major physical barriers to construction such as confined geometries at 

the Highbridge Interchange and dense development around the CBE. Closures during 

construction could cause adverse environmental impacts. Adverse impacts to nearby 

cultural, historic and visual resources also would be likely. An environmental justice 

study would likely be required. Hazardous material could be disturbed during construction. 

The capacity increases would lead to improved traffic flow, which could have environmental 

benefits, including air quality improvements in northern Manhattan and in the 

Bronx due to the diversion of truck traffic off East Tremont Avenue, and in the neighborhoods 

surrounding Hunts Point Market. Improved traffic flow in the Northern Crossing 

corridor could strengthen regional connections and give a boost to the regional economy. 

Institutional barriers are significant, including financing and community support. The 

projects do not involve the introduction of new technologies. 


1. NYSDOT – Complete Highbridge Interchange EIS. 

2. NYSDOT – Bronx Arterials Needs Study (completed). 



Action 2 – The Southern Crossing Corridor – Coordinate Proposed Improvements 

Description 

Like the Northern Crossing corridor, the Southern Crossing corridor is an extremely 

important transportation system that serves many travel markets. The Southern Crossing 

corridor includes three major bridges and several major regional highways that carry high 

volumes of traffic and are often severely congested. It carries traffic to and from many 

parts of the region, including Newark and JFK airports; the seaport facilities in Newark/ 

Elizabeth and Staten Island; and communities in Brooklyn, northern New Jersey, Staten 

Island, Queens, and Long Island. 

Two important transportation studies already are underway by the agencies responsible 

for these facilities that would impact travel in this corridor: 

1. The Goethals Bridge EIS – Working with the U.S. Coast Guard as the lead Federal 

agency, the PANYNJ is initiating a NEPA DEIS to examine strategies for improving 

the interstate crossing at the Goethals Bridge to address its functional obsolescence 

and improve safety, reliability, and level of service. 

2. The Staten Island Expressway MIS – NYSDOT has completed a study of the feasibility 

of constructing a bus/HOV lane system and other improvements along the Staten 

Island Expressway. 

A corridor-wide study would bring together the results of these studies and evaluate their 

overall impacts on the corridor. It also would permit the agencies conducting the facility 

studies to work together to identify an overall plan for assessing transportation problems 

in the corridor. 

The Goethals Bridge EIS is intended to address substandard features and improve levels 

of service. Increasing traffic volumes and wider standard vehicles accentuate the deficiencies 

of the existing bridge. Its two 10-foot-wide lanes in each direction are two feet narrower 

than current design standards. The bridge lacks shoulder lanes and has steep 

approach ramps. These features contribute to worsening congestion, recurring delays and 

above-average accident rates. Its sister Outerbridge Crossing faces similar traffic pressures 

and physical constraints. 

PANYNJ’s Goethals Bridge Modernization Plan will include among the alternatives to be 

assessed the replacement of the Goethals Bridge with a new structure. The original bridge 

deck will undergo major rehabilitation in the near term to extend its service life for seven 

to 10 years while the DEIS and plans for eventual implementation of a capital improvement 

go forward. 

The Staten Island Expressway runs east-west and carries three travel lanes in each direction, 

separated by a median. As shown in Figure 5.10, the Staten Island Arterial Needs 

Study identified a number of proposed improvements along this corridor, including the 

addition of a bus/HOV or BRT lane in each direction on the Expressway and the 



Expressway between Exit 12 (Slosson Avenue) and Exit 13 (Manor Road). These service 

roads generally have a speed limit of 35 mph and carry two travel lanes and a right curb 

lane used for parking. The proposed strategy assumes that the discontinuities in the service 

roads are bridged, and continuous service roads are provided along the entire length 

of the Staten Island Expressway. 

In addition, NYSDOT is preparing to begin construction in 2004 on median shoulders 

along the Staten Island Expressway from the Verrazano Narrows Bridge to Slosson 

Avenue. Buses would be permitted on these shoulders during the morning (eastbound) 

and evening (westbound) peak periods. An additional freight-related consideration for 

the corridor would permit trucks to use these shoulders during off-peak periods. The 

shoulder lanes would effectively function as a dedicated “freightway” during periods of 

the day when they are not used by buses. 


Improved level of service along the Southern Corridor is projected to open the Staten 

Island Expressway to greater traffic volumes. Combined with the completion of the 

Expressway service roads (see below), these improvements would help to improve traffic 

operations in the Southern Crossing corridor. Improving capacity of the Arthur Kill 

crossings without improvements to the Staten Island Expressway would still have 

independent utility by improving the safety of operations on the Goethals Bridge (by 

widening the lane widths). This would reduce accidents and non-recurring congestion in 

the Southern Crossing and improve access to the Howland Hook Marine Terminal. 

Although the proposed Staten Island Expressway service road improvements are aimed 

primarily at improving local access and bus operations along the Expressway corridor, 

they would provide needed capacity for the additional demand generated by the 

improvements to the Goethals Bridge by handling more of the existing local volume off of 

the mainline. Detailed highway capacity analysis is needed to ascertain whether the 

mainline could absorb an estimated increase of 5,000 total vehicles per day for the eastbound 

direction and 1,300 vehicles per day for the westbound direction. This is the total 

passenger and commercial traffic that would be attracted to the improved corridor. A 

before and after comparison of traffic volumes for the Staten Island Expressway shows 

that volume to capacity ratios would be similar to existing conditions, indicating that the 

improved roadway would accommodate more traffic at current levels of service. Thus, 

the overall throughput of the Southern Crossing corridor would be increased. 

Allowing trucks to use the “bus-only” shoulders on the Staten Island Expressway would 

provide the equivalent of one additional travel lane in each direction for the affected segment 

during off-peak hours. (This impact was not analyzed for this project.) 

Other Impacts 

These projects face significant physical barriers to construction. Property takings would 

be likely. Closures during construction could cause adverse environmental impacts. Any 

new bridge landings would be located within coastal zones. Hazardous material sites 

may exist in the vicinity of the new bridge footings. An environmental justice study may 



be required. Improved operations may divert more trucks to the new bridges, as well as 

to the rest of the Southern and Eastern (I-278) corridors. With enhanced capacity to 

accommodate and better manage the additional volumes, improved traffic flow could lead 

to regional environmental benefits along either or both of the Southern and Northern 

Crossing corridors. This project could significantly improve regional connectivity. The 

Goethals Bridge improvements, in particular, could improve access to Howland Hook 

Marine Terminal and related industrial uses. The projects face major institutional barriers 

to implementation in terms of financing and community issues, and additional challenges 

in requiring bi-state support in the case of the Goethals Bridge improvements. The 

projects do not involve the introduction of new technologies. 

The use of the median shoulders for buses on the Staten Island Expressway is considered 

a “categorical exclusion” and therefore did not require an EIS. However, any operational 

changes above and beyond the proposed bus-only use would require such a study. 


1. NYMTC, NYSDOT and PANYNJ – Conduct corridor study. 

2. PANYNJ – Conduct Goethals Bridge EIS. 

3. NYSDOT – Conduct Staten Island Expressway EIS. 

Action 3 – Eastern (I-278) Corridor – Conduct a Regional Study 

Description 

The Eastern (I-278) corridor is an extension of the Southern Crossing Corridor and 

includes the Gowanus and Brooklyn Queens Expressways. It connects the Verrazano 

Narrows Bridge to the Long Island Expressway (I-495) and points further north and east, 

and serves the industrial and port facilities along the Brooklyn waterfront. 

Studies currently underway on improvements to several major highway facilities, 

including the Gowanus and Staten Island Expressways, offer the opportunity to consider 

creation of dedicated truck-only “freightways” during certain time periods. The use of the 

bus-only shoulder on the Staten Island Expressway by trucks during off-peak periods is 

described above in Action 2; the “dedicated freightways” proposed here for the Eastern 

Corridor is essentially an extension of this “off-peak freightway” concept through Brooklyn 

on the Gowanus Expressway. 

As shown in Figure 5.11, a peak-period high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane on the 

Gowanus is used from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. in the inbound (eastbound/northbound) 

direction for buses and for E-ZPass customers with three or more passengers. The 

Gowanus Expressway is one of the most congested and capacity-constrained links of the 

regional truck route network. Even outside of peak periods, it is often difficult for trucks 



Figure 5.11 Gowanus Expressway 



to transit the roadway due to chronic congestion during much of the day. NYSDOT 

currently is conducting an EIS to assess long-term investment options aimed at improving 

conditions on the Gowanus. One possible near-term solution would be to allow trucks to 

use the Expressway’s HOV lane during off-peak periods. This policy shift would provide 

extra capacity for trucking on the Gowanus, and could reduce incidents by segmenting 

commercial traffic out of the general traffic stream. This improvement also could be beneficial 

in the medium/long term, where improvements as part of the Gowanus rehabilitation 

program could be used to further separate passenger and commercial vehicles. As 

part of the EIS, NYSDOT also is evaluating new ramps from the South Brooklyn waterfront 

to the Gowanus at 65 th Street. These ramps also could be incorporated as part of a 

package of freight movement improvements. 

As shown in Figure 5.12, there are overhead obstructions on both sides of the Brooklyn- 

Queens Expressway in the Brooklyn Heights area. The eastbound (northbound) roadway 

runs on top of the westbound (southbound) roadway in this area, and the Brooklyn 

Heights Esplanade and Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges represent the overhead 

clearance constraints for the eastbound roadway. The westbound Brooklyn-Queens 

Expressway has no posted height limitations. The eastbound roadway is posted with a 

12-foot two-inch height restriction south of Brooklyn Heights warning large trucks to exit 

at Exit 27 (Atlantic Avenue) or 28A (Cadman Plaza/Brooklyn Bridge). Navy Street 

(Exit 29B) is the point where eastbound trucks generally return to the Brooklyn-Queens 

Expressway. 


Allowing trucks to use the Gowanus HOV lane would significantly benefit truck operations, 

as over 600 trucks per day would shift from the general use to the HOV lanes. 

Regional truck movement would benefit from the use of the less congested HOV lanes 

during periods of no commuter use. One limitation of the HOV lanes is that they are 

oriented toward accessing the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel; as such, the benefit for Queensbound 

trucks on the I-278 corridor would be minimal. In addition, the facility would have 

limited use as a freight facility unless it could be expanded to provide two-directional 

travel (NYSDOT is studying a two-directional HOV facility as part of Gowanus reconstruction/rehabilitation 

projects currently being developed). The 65 th Street ramps would 

improve connectivity between the South Brooklyn waterfront (for which there are several 

freight-related development plans, including an auto port) and the Gowanus. However, 

absent additional truck capacity on the Gowanus, these improvements would not necessarily 

improve traffic operations as the Gowanus lacks the capacity to accommodate additional 

truck trips. 

Removing the physical constraint on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway would reduce 

truck diversion to local streets and further improve truck operations on the Southern 

Crossing and Eastern corridors. Increasing truck throughput on the Gowanus without 

solving the clearance problem on the Brooklyn-Queens would simply increase diversion 

of trucks to local streets off of the latter, underscoring the need for a corridor-wide solution 

to the problem of congestion. 



Figure 5.12 Brooklyn Queens Expressway Clearance Restrictions 



Other Impacts 

Improved traffic flow and waterfront access to the Gowanus would have potential environmental 

benefits and reduce the diversion of truck traffic from the Gowanus to local 

roadways. There would be no significant physical barriers to implementation, as this 

alternative primarily involves an operational change; however, some physical upgrades 

would probably be required to accommodate or manage the access of commercial vehicles. 

Opening up HOV lanes to other uses poses significant institutional challenges 

involving local, state, and Federal interests. The project would improve regional connectivity 

and yield economic benefits in the Eastern (I-278) corridor, with implications for the 

Southern Crossing corridor as well. 

Increased truck throughput on the Gowanus would likely cause the diversion of more 

trucks off of the eastbound Brooklyn-Queens Expressway to local streets, with adverse 

environmental impacts. Removal of the clearance restriction would reduce this diversion 

and improve regional connectivity in the Southern and Eastern corridors with positive 

environmental and economic impacts. This project presents major physical challenges 

and is likely to be very expensive. 


1. NYMTC and NYSDOT – Conduct a feasibility study of the impact of truck use of the 

Gowanus HOV lane on corridor-wide freight mobility. 

2. NYSDOT – Assess the feasibility of incorporation of truck HOV-lane use into longterm 

plans for Gowanus reconstruction. 

3. NYSDOT – Conduct a feasibility study to develop and assess strategies for removing 

the physical barriers to truck movement on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. 

4. NYMTC and NYSDOT – Conduct a corridor study. 

Action 4 – JFK Airport and Industrial Access Corridor – Conduct a Regional Study 

Description 

As shown in Figure 5.13, several industrial sites and JFK International Airport are located 

in southeast Queens and several areas of Brooklyn, such as Flatlands. Currently, there is 

one primary JFK Airport access route for commercial traffic, the Van Wyck Expressway. 

This route does not permit 53-foot trucks and it is congested throughout much of the day. 

Trucks share the road with buses and automobiles. It provides access from points to the 

north and east only. Access from the south and west is via arterial roadways such as 

Atlantic Avenue, crossing through residential and commercial areas of Brooklyn and 

Queens. Airport access for trucks is a multi-corridor issue that should be examined carefully 

to determine how the dynamic nature of improvements to one or more of the corridors 

would affect each of the others as well as the system as a whole. 



Figure 5.13 JFK Airport/Industrial Access Corridors 



Several proposals have been advanced for addressing the issue of access to JFK airport 

and related industrial areas. From the north, suggested strategies include extending the 

Clearview Expressway through a tunnel to JFK, or making further operational and capacity 

improvements to the Van Wyck Expressway. There is considerable community opposition 

to the Clearview extension and it has been dropped from further consideration. 

The need for capacity improvements along the Van Wyck Expressway corridor was identified 

as a key concern in the New York City Arterial Goods Movement Study (March 2003). 

NYSDOT and the PANYNJ recently completed some capacity improvements along the 

southernmost segment of the Expressway in conjunction with the JFK AirTrain project. 

These primarily involved minor improvements at ramp junctions, and the upgrade of 

shoulder segments to create weaving sections between adjacent on/off ramp pairs. 

NYSDOT currently has a project on the TIP that will examine operational issues at the 

Kew Gardens Interchange, where the Van Wyck crosses the Grand Central and Jackie 

Robinson Parkways. While only limited commercial traffic is permitted on a portion of 

the Grand Central, any operational improvements at this heavily congested interchange 

would have a positive impact on truck movement along the Van Wyck. 

A more ambitious plan for the Van Wyck corridor would involve the construction of an 

additional travel lane in each direction through the submerged section of roadway south 

of Jamaica Station. This would be a major undertaking, and would likely require 

substantial infrastructure improvements to widen the Van Wyck “trench” in this area and 

cantilever the Expressway service roads over the outermost lanes on the mainline below. 

From the south and west, current strategies include improvements to Atlantic Avenue and 

conversion of part of the Bay Ridge branch of the LIRR to a truck haul road while maintaining 

the railroad right-of-way. Due to the geometric configuration of the existing rightof-way, 

as well as response to concerns expressed by community groups, improvements 

on Linden Boulevard to facilitate truck traffic have been dropped from further consideration. 

In regard to the Belt Parkway, there are safety concerns, potentially high infrastructure 

upgrade costs, and community concerns associated with allowing commercial 

vehicles . There is no current proposal to allow commercial vehicles on the Belt Parkway. 


Improvements to the Van Wyck Expressway and Atlantic Avenue were not sufficiently 

defined to permit the inclusion of analysis in this report. The operational study of the 

Kew Gardens Interchange is included in the current TIP, while the more substantial widening 

of the Van Wyck is a conceptual proposal that has not yet been examined in any 

detail. 

Other Impacts 

Improvements to the Van Wyck Expressway and Atlantic Avenue were not sufficiently 

defined to permit the inclusion of analysis in this report. 




1. NYMTC – Complete the South Brooklyn Transportation Improvement Study (TIS). 

2. NYMTC, NYSDOT, NYCDOT and PANYNJ – Conduct a multi-corridor feasibility 

study of strategies for improving air cargo access to JFK and adjacent industrial areas. 



6.0 Regional Transportation 

System Impacts 

The macro-level regional impacts of the three alternative packages were analyzed by calculating: 

1) the change in truck regional vehicle miles (VMT) and hours (VHT) of travel; 

and 2) the benefits to the regional highway system and its users. Each analysis is based on 

the output of the NYMTC Best Practices model. Specific projects that did not have readily 

modeled benefits are not included in this part of the analysis. Changes at this high level of 

analysis cannot be directly attributable to specific projects within a given package, but 

only to the package as a whole. 

• 6.1 Changes in Regional VMT and VHT 

VMT and VHT are important measurements of systemwide performance because they are 

surrogates for changes in regional congestion and macro-scale air quality. Tables 6.1 and 

6.2 show the change in commodity (freight) truck VMT and VHT produced by each of the 

three alternative packages as compared to the 2025 baseline. Note that in the tables, 

reductions in VMT and VHT are expressed as positive values (since that is the goal of the 

study) and increases in VMT and VHT are expressed as negative values. The change is 

presented both in terms of absolute change and percentage change. Results are presented 

for the broader 28-county region. This analysis includes the 10-county NYMTC region, 

two counties in Connecticut, 14 counties in northern New Jersey (roughly equivalent to 

the NJTPA region), and two Hudson Valley counties (Orange and Dutchess) which are not 

in the NYMTC region. Results are presented for each county individually and for six 

subregional groupings of counties: New York City, Long Island, Hudson Valley, 

Connecticut, New Jersey, and the NYMTC region. 

The Operational, Policy, and Low-Cost package produces very small VMT reductions of 

0.1 percent and VHT reductions of 0.4 percent. The reductions in VMT are spread relatively 

evenly across the 28-county region. The reductions in VHT are concentrated most 

heavily in New York City, (0.9 percent) which is where most of the projects are physically 

located and where existing congestion is the worst. 

The Rail System package produces reductions in VMT and VHT of 4.6 percent each. This 

is consistent with the findings of the Cross Harbor DEIS, upon which this alternative is 

based. These changes are distributed relatively equally among the subregions with a few 

exceptions. Richmond County (Staten Island) experiences the largest reductions 

(14.7 percent of VMT and 16.4 percent of VHT) due to the diversion to rail of freight truck 



traffic which would otherwise travel via the Staten Island Expressway to the Verrazano 

Narrows Bridge. Queens is the only county to experience an increase in both VMT 

(-2.6 percent) and VHT (-4.9 percent). This is due to the siting of a major intermodal yard 

in the Maspeth area. The reduction in regional cross-Hudson freight trips is offset by an 

increase in local truck moves into and out of this yard. 



Table 6.1 

Commodity Truck VMT Comparison between Improvement 

Packages and the Baseline Condition 

County/Region 

Baseline 

VMT 

Policy Package Highway System Package Rail System Package 

VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 

VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 

VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 

New York 42,180 41,288 2.1% 41,116 2.6% 40,045 5.1% 

Queens 116,714 116,936 -0.2% 118,024 -1.1% 119,768 -2.6% 

Bronx 122,079 122,577 -0.4% 121,662 0.3% 117,074 4.1% 

Kings 74,630 74,683 -0.1% 77,647 -3.9% 69,402 7.0% 

Richmond 71,427 71,553 -0.2% 71,745 -0.4% 60,924 14.7% 

Subtotal NYC 427,030 427,037 0.0% 430,194 -0.7% 407,213 4.6% 

Nassau 107,130 106,835 0.3% 106,884 0.2% 102,921 3.9% 

Suffolk 119,032 119,105 -0.1% 118,904 0.1% 114,674 3.7% 

Subtotal Long Island 226,162 225,940 0.1% 225,788 0.2% 217,595 3.8% 

Westchester 253,536 254,304 -0.3% 254,142 -0.2% 242,586 4.3% 

Rockland 132,237 132,795 -0.4% 133,145 -0.7% 124,929 5.5% 

Putnam 85,823 85,955 -0.2% 86,075 -0.3% 79,970 6.8% 

Orange 442,345 442,325 0.0% 441,863 0.1% 415,830 6.0% 

Dutchess 164,898 164,700 0.1% 165,303 -0.2% 153,209 7.1% 

Subtotal Hudson Valley 1,531,163 1,531,959 -0.1% 1,532,104 -0.1% 1,451,714 5.2% 

Fairfield 171,120 170,856 0.2% 171,248 -0.1% 164,448 3.9% 

New Haven 199,993 199,727 0.1% 200,250 -0.1% 190,806 4.6% 

Subtotal SW Connecticut 371,113 370,583 0.1% 371,498 -0.1% 355,254 4.3% 

Bergen 229,270 226,640 1.1% 225,085 1.9% 214,174 6.6% 

Passaic 69,653 69,420 0.3% 69,496 0.2% 68,762 1.3% 

Hudson 120,050 119,906 0.1% 118,746 1.1% 115,568 3.7% 

Essex 225,235 224,463 0.3% 224,605 0.3% 216,797 3.7% 

Union 193,383 193,270 0.1% 193,817 -0.2% 188,590 2.5% 

Morris 208,996 208,555 0.2% 208,631 0.2% 206,754 1.1% 

Somerset 199,925 201,411 -0.7% 201,630 -0.8% 197,706 1.1% 

Middlesex 491,633 489,045 0.5% 490,560 0.2% 460,751 6.3% 

Monmouth 81,655 80,390 1.5% 79,938 2.1% 80,636 1.2% 

Ocean 35,139 34,776 1.0% 34,682 1.3% 34,668 1.3% 

Hunterdon 153,346 153,571 -0.1% 153,538 -0.1% 150,707 1.7% 

Warren 128,946 129,065 -0.1% 128,867 0.1% 127,591 1.1% 

Sussex 25,944 25,799 0.6% 26,180 -0.9% 25,227 2.8% 

Mercer 344,247 343,061 0.3% 344,467 -0.1% 320,670 6.8% 

Subtotal Northern New 

Jersey 

2,507,422 2,499,372 0.3% 2,500,242 0.3% 2,408,601 3.9% 

Subtotal NYMTC 1,124,788 1,126,031 -0.1% 1,129,344 -0.4% 1,072,293 4.7% 

Total 7,166,034 7,158,530 0.1% 7,167,834 0.0% 6,836,963 4.6% 



Table 6.2 

Commodity Truck VHT Comparison between Improvement 

Packages and the Baseline Condition 

County/Region 

Baseline 

VMT 


VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 

VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 

VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 


Queens 4,284 4,285 0.0% 4,230 1.3% 4,494 -4.9% 

Bronx 4,671 4,561 2.4% 4,658 0.3% 4,482 4.0% 

Kings 3,631 3,627 0.1% 3,741 -3.0% 3,406 6.2% 

Richmond 3,248 3,219 0.9% 3,131 3.6% 2,716 16.4% 

Subtotal NYC 18,505 18,332 0.9% 18,356 0.8% 17,632 4.7% 

Nassau 3,105 3,092 0.4% 3,100 0.2% 2,999 3.4% 

Suffolk 3,193 3,191 0.1% 3,189 0.1% 3,080 3.5% 


Westchester 7,009 6,978 0.4% 7,056 -0.7% 6,776 3.3% 

Rockland 3,805 3,779 0.7% 3,802 0.1% 3,600 5.4% 

Putnam 1,882 1,890 -0.4% 1,884 -0.1% 1,762 6.4% 

Orange 10,560 10,564 0.0% 10,546 0.1% 9,915 6.1% 

Dutchess 4,841 4,840 0.0% 4,855 -0.3% 4,504 7.0% 

Subtotal Hudson Valley 28,097 28,051 0.2% 28,143 -0.2% 26,557 5.5% 

Fairfield 7,006 6,945 0.9% 6,924 1.2% 6,806 2.9% 

New Haven 6,511 6,503 0.1% 6,497 0.2% 6,218 4.5% 

Subtotal SW Connecticut 13,517 13,448 0.5% 13,421 0.7% 13,024 3.6% 

Bergen 7,519 7,518 0.0% 7,349 2.3% 6,952 7.5% 

Passaic 2,095 2,092 0.1% 2,088 0.3% 2,075 1.0% 

Hudson 4,073 4,077 -0.1% 4,004 1.7% 3,933 3.4% 

Essex 6,715 6,693 0.3% 6,683 0.5% 6,474 3.6% 

Union 5,331 5,314 0.3% 5,425 -1.8% 5,202 2.4% 

Morris 5,858 5,870 -0.2% 5,855 0.1% 5,817 0.7% 

Somerset 5,799 5,852 -0.9% 5,868 -1.2% 5,746 0.9% 

Middlesex 16,795 16,601 1.2% 16,717 0.5% 15,644 6.9% 

Monmouth 2,230 2,199 1.4% 2,178 2.3% 2,198 1.4% 

Ocean 1,110 1,107 0.3% 1,099 1.0% 1,098 1.1% 

Hunterdon 4,199 4,208 -0.2% 4,203 -0.1% 4,124 1.8% 

Warren 2,452 2,454 -0.1% 2,449 0.1% 2,417 1.4% 

Sussex 858 852 0.7% 868 -1.2% 831 3.1% 

Mercer 10,600 10,502 0.9% 10,658 -0.5% 9,835 7.2% 

Subtotal Northern 

New Jersey 

75,634 75,339 0.4% 75,444 0.3% 72,346 4.3% 

Subtotal NYMTC 37,499 37,262 0.6% 37,387 0.3% 35,849 4.4% 

Total 208,468 207,567 0.4% 207,862 0.3% 198,930 4.6% 



The Highway System package produces no change in regional VMT. This is not 

surprising since this alternative is not designed to divert truck trips to rail (as both of the 

other packages do), but rather to better accommodate forecasted freight truck trips. It 

does produce a small increase in VMT (0.4 percent) in the NYMTC region and a small 

decrease (0.3 percent) in New Jersey. Since all of the improvement projects are in the 

NYMTC region, this alternative results in some marginal diversion of freight truck routing 

from New Jersey to the NYMTC region. The test of whether this route diversion has overall 

positive or negative impacts can be determined by comparing the increase in demand 

to the improvements in capacity and operations as described in the Roadway Impact section. 

However, it is interesting to note that this alternative does result in a small reduction 

in regional VHT of 0.3 percent in the region as a whole, in New Jersey, and in the NYMTC 

region. Thus, even though there is a 0.4 percent increase in NYMTC freight truck VMT, 

there is still a reduction in VHT of 0.3 percent, implying a net improvement in highway 

operations related to freight truck movement. On a regional basis this level of reduction 

in VHT is small and comparable to what is achieved by the Policy package. However, 

there may be more significant localized impacts where specific physical improvements are 

made to the highway system as described in the Roadway Impact section. 

It is interesting to compare these forecasted changes in commodity truck VMT and VHT to 

the changes in all truck VMT and VHT. Commodity trucks represent a small portion 

(25-30 percent) of total truck VMT and VHT in the region. As shown in the summary 

table (Table 6.3), an examination of the changes in total truck VMT and VHT produces a 

somewhat different picture. Non-commodity trucks are more difficult to influence 

through planning efforts because their behavior is less predictable. Therefore, the analysis 

of the impact on all trucks was not the focus of the study. Nevertheless, these findings 

provide some additional context for interpreting the impact on commodity trucks discussed 

above. 

Table 6.3 

Change in Total Truck VMT and VHT 

Alternative VMT Reduction VHT Reduction 

Baseline 0 0 

Policy 0 0.14% 

Highway -0.02% 0.31% 

Rail 0.96% 0.88% 



The Policy package still has a minimal impact and the Rail package still has the largest 

impact. However, the differential between the Rail package and the other packages is not 

as great as it was when only commodity trucks were analyzed because the Rail package 

diverts some freight from truck to rail but has no impact on the larger universe of truck 

trips. Conversely, the Highway package still results in an increase in total truck VMT but 

now has a more significant impact on truck VHT relative to the Policy and Rail packages. 

This is because all trucks benefit from the highway improvements included in this package. 

Expanding the universe of vehicles further to include all vehicles (trucks, autos, 

buses, etc.) dilutes the merits of and distinctions between the alternative packages among 

a much greater pool of traffic, and does not generate a meaningful comparison. The 

analysis of user and system benefits below provides a better comparison of the impact on 

all travelers and vehicles. 

Tables 6.4 and 6.5 disaggregate the non-commodity truck trips into the same geographic 

subregions as previously presented for commodity truck trips in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. 

Because there are more than twice as many non-commodity truck trips as commodity 

truck trips, the percentage changes are much smaller. All of the changes are less than 

one percent at the subregional level although some individual counties [Queens, 

Richmond, Fairfield (Connecticut), and Hudson (New Jersey)] would experience larger 

reductions in VHT, primarily in the Highway package. These areas reflect the localized 

impacts of the more significant physical improvements included in the Highway package. 

These include the Highbridge Interchange reconstruction, continuous service roads on the 

Cross Bronx and Staten Island Expressways, the Clearview Expressway extension to JFK, 

and the Goethals Bridge capacity expansion. Clearly, the most significant subregional 

improvement in non-freight truck VHT occurs in NYC in the Highway package. The 

impact of the Rail and Policy packages on non-freight trucks trips is minimal. The 

Highway package does result in an overall net increase in non-freight truck VMT of 

0.3 percent in the NYMTC region versus a 0.1 percent reduction in northern New Jersey. 

In conclusion, it is important to note that the benefits of the Rail package are most significant 

when only freight transportation is considered, while the benefits of the Highway package 

are most significant when all truck transportation is considered. Therefore, while the 

Rail package can be judged by its impact on freight transportation alone, the Highway 

package should be evaluated as part of a larger regional transportation strategy impacting 

all truck traffic. 



Table 6.4 

Non-Commodity Truck VMT Comparison between 

Improvement Packages 

County/Region 

Baseline 

VMT 


VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 

VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 

VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 


Queens 712,455 712,317 0.0% 719,912 -1.0% 712,059 0.1% 

Bronx 493,470 495,963 -0.5% 496,262 -0.6% 493,290 0.0% 

Kings 464,818 465,805 -0.2% 467,973 -0.7% 465,224 -0.1% 

Richmond 181,543 183,220 -0.9% 183,041 -0.8% 182,645 -0.6% 

Subtotal NYC 2,186,640 2,190,633 -0.2% 2,199,477 -0.6% 2,187,381 0.0% 

Nassau 693,726 693,453 0.0% 691,959 0.3% 693,597 0.0% 

Suffolk 956,178 956,450 0.0% 955,522 0.1% 956,119 0.0% 

Subtotal Long Island 1,649,904 1,649,903 0.0% 1,647,481 0.1% 1,649,716 0.0% 

Westchester 1,100,064 1,101,462 -0.1% 1,104,186 -0.4% 1,099,351 0.1% 

Rockland 480,354 484,489 -0.9% 482,099 -0.4% 482,308 -0.4% 

Putnam 258,091 258,315 -0.1% 259,542 -0.6% 258,184 0.0% 

Orange 1,302,473 1,306,677 -0.3% 1,299,309 0.2% 1,304,242 -0.1% 

Dutchess 529,202 529,270 0.0% 531,241 -0.4% 529,094 0.0% 

Subtotal Hudson Valley 3,670,184 3,680,213 -0.3% 3,676,377 -0.2% 3,673,179 -0.1% 

Fairfield 844,625 844,099 0.1% 844,617 0.0% 843,807 0.1% 

New Haven 874,746 874,477 0.0% 875,114 0.0% 875,059 0.0% 

Subtotal SW Connecticut 1,719,371 1,718,576 0.0% 1,719,731 0.0% 1,718,866 0.0% 

Bergen 842,290 838,238 0.5% 835,062 0.9% 840,600 0.2% 

Passaic 332,266 331,185 0.3% 332,783 -0.2% 332,060 0.1% 

Hudson 337,303 336,346 0.3% 335,096 0.7% 337,102 0.1% 

Essex 657,743 657,293 0.1% 654,819 0.4% 657,024 0.1% 

Union 474,145 474,495 -0.1% 476,020 -0.4% 474,520 -0.1% 

Morris 689,416 690,920 -0.2% 690,750 -0.2% 691,056 -0.2% 

Somerset 536,871 541,238 -0.8% 539,758 -0.5% 539,315 -0.5% 

Middlesex 1,170,455 1,166,459 0.3% 1,166,944 0.3% 1,169,482 0.1% 

Monmouth 583,207 582,239 0.2% 581,710 0.3% 583,315 0.0% 

Ocean 343,032 342,695 0.1% 342,547 0.1% 343,203 0.0% 

Hunterdon 385,092 383,888 0.3% 384,774 0.1% 383,620 0.4% 

Warren 218,514 218,203 0.1% 218,336 0.1% 218,085 0.2% 

Sussex 210,867 209,062 0.9% 211,616 -0.4% 210,463 0.2% 

Mercer 654,552 655,159 -0.1% 655,464 -0.1% 654,281 0.0% 


Jersey 

7,435,753 7,427,420 0.1% 7,425,679 0.1% 7,434,126 0.0% 

Subtotal NYMTC 5,675,053 5,684,802 -0.2% 5,692,785 -0.3% 5,676,940 0.0% 

Total 25,887,951 25,906,070 -0.1% 25,911,811 -0.1% 25,892,410 0.0% 



Table 6.5 

Non-Commodity Truck VHT Comparison between 

Improvement Packages 

County/Region 

Baseline 

VMT 


VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 

VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 

VMT 

Percent 

Reduction 

New York 26,401 26,465 -0.2% 26,225 0.7% 26,416 -0.1% 

Queens 32,843 32,790 0.2% 32,357 1.5% 32,851 0.0% 

Bronx 21,848 21,588 1.2% 21,921 -0.3% 21,883 -0.2% 

Kings 28,291 28,272 0.1% 28,088 0.7% 28,283 0.0% 

Richmond 9,044 9,072 -0.3% 8,799 2.7% 8,977 0.7% 

Subtotal NYC 118,427 118,187 0.2% 117,390 0.9% 118,410 0.0% 

Nassau 27,066 27,054 0.0% 26,982 0.3% 27,082 -0.1% 

Suffolk 33,248 33,251 0.0% 33,247 0.0% 33,248 0.0% 


Westchester 35,759 35,605 0.4% 35,932 -0.5% 35,755 0.0% 

Rockland 15,510 15,483 0.2% 15,431 0.5% 15,567 -0.4% 

Putnam 6,267 6,286 -0.3% 6,266 0.0% 6,279 -0.2% 

Orange 35,617 35,771 -0.4% 35,554 0.2% 35,594 0.1% 

Dutchess 16,703 16,720 -0.1% 16,770 -0.4% 16,714 -0.1% 

Subtotal Hudson Valley 109,856 109,865 0.0% 109,953 -0.1% 109,909 0.0% 

Fairfield 36,739 36,603 0.4% 36,353 1.1% 36,693 0.1% 

New Haven 30,456 30,432 0.1% 30,380 0.2% 30,496 -0.1% 

Subtotal SW Connecticut 67,195 67,035 0.2% 66,733 0.7% 67,189 0.0% 

Bergen 31,042 31,150 -0.3% 30,816 0.7% 30,954 0.3% 

Passaic 12,422 12,395 0.2% 12,423 0.0% 12,430 -0.1% 

Hudson 14,337 14,294 0.3% 14,121 1.5% 14,317 0.1% 

Essex 24,229 24,245 -0.1% 24,056 0.7% 24,210 0.1% 

Union 15,370 15,355 0.1% 15,584 -1.4% 15,336 0.2% 

Morris 23,439 23,513 -0.3% 23,466 -0.1% 23,522 -0.4% 

Somerset 18,347 18,513 -0.9% 18,461 -0.6% 18,450 -0.6% 

Middlesex 46,122 45,878 0.5% 45,778 0.7% 45,890 0.5% 

Monmouth 19,254 19,285 -0.2% 19,239 0.1% 19,255 0.0% 

Ocean 12,707 12,713 0.0% 12,696 0.1% 12,714 -0.1% 

Hunterdon 12,176 12,134 0.3% 12,169 0.1% 12,123 0.4% 

Warren 6,018 6,002 0.3% 6,009 0.1% 5,995 0.4% 

Sussex 7,697 7,614 1.1% 7,723 -0.3% 7,677 0.3% 

Mercer 20,033 20,065 -0.2% 20,179 -0.7% 20,016 0.1% 


Jersey 

263,193 263,156 0.0% 262,720 0.2% 262,889 0.1% 

Subtotal NYMTC 236,277 235,866 0.2% 235,248 0.4% 236,341 0.0% 

Total 974,777 973,940 0.1% 971,330 0.4% 974,565 0.0% 



• 6.2 System User and Societal Benefits 

The transportation benefits of the various packages were calculated using procedures from 

the Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (STEAM). STEAM quantifies the 

annual current dollar value of changes (in the year 2025) in the following four categories of 

user benefits applied to all users (all vehicles) traveling on the regional roadway system: 

• In-vehicle travel time; 

• Fuel cost; 

• Other vehicle operating costs; and 

• Accidents (cost to users). 

STEAM quantifies three types of societal benefits: 

• Vehicle Emissions (CO, HC, NO x , PM 10 ); 

• Noise; and 

• Accidents (cost to society). 

For each package, a benefit comparison is made to the 2025 Baseline condition. The findings 

are shown in Table 6.6, disaggregated by the two basic benefit categories (user and 

society) and by the NYMTC region and the remainder of the highway model coverage 

area. As shown, the Policy package produces $48 million in annual benefits; the Rail 

package produces $75 million in benefits; and the Highway package produces $166 million 

in benefits. This analysis takes the VMT/VHT discussion to its logical conclusion by 

analyzing the differences in impacts on all highway users and vehicles. While the VMT 

and VHT numbers are too large to highlight meaningful distinctions among the alternatives, 

STEAM magnifies these distinctions. This again highlights the fact that the benefits of 

the Rail package are concentrated on freight traffic while the benefits of the Highway package 

impact all traffic to a greater extent. 

The benefits of all of the alternative packages are largely user benefits rather than societal 

benefits, although this is somewhat less so for the Policy package. The benefits of the 

Policy package are split relatively evenly between the NYMTC region and the rest of the 

larger region (primarily northern New Jersey). The benefits of the Highway package 

accrue largely to the NYMTC region, by a factor of more than two to one, primarily because 

that is where all of the projects are located. The benefits of the Rail package accrue more 

to the rest of the region (by a factor of almost four to one) than to the NYMTC region. This 

is the case for two reasons: a) most of the commodity truck trips diverted to rail by the 

Cross Harbor project have to pass through New Jersey to reach the NYMTC region; and 

b) benefits to the NYMTC region are diluted somewhat by the local final delivery truck 

trips generated in the vicinity of the intermodal yard in Maspeth, Queens. 



Table 6.6 

STEAM Benefit Comparison between Improvement Packages 

and Baseline Condition 

(In Millions of 2002 Dollars) 

Policy and 

Operations Package 

Highway Systems 

Package 

Rail Systems 

Package 

NYMTC Region 

User Benefit $25 $110 $15 

Societal Benefit $1 $6 $0.7 

Total Benefit $26 $116 $16 

Rest of BPM Model Coverage 


Societal Benefit $11 $11 $6 


Total 


Societal Benefit $12 $17 $7 


• 6.3 Environmental Impacts 

Table 6.7 contains a summary of the environmental impact analysis for the various freight 

movement improvement alternatives. Improvements are first classified as having an adverse 

or beneficial impact. Three levels of environmental impact are then used to define the magnitude 

of the impact: no impact, moderate or site-specific impact, and significant impact. 

Due to the size of the study areas and the absence of final engineering designs in most 

cases, the environmental analysis is qualitative in nature. Generally, policy alternatives 

have little or no impact on the environment. Road widening projects and new construction 

generally result in the greatest environmental impacts. Projects with impacts to environmental 

justice communities have been noted in the “demographics” column of the 

table. Highlights of the analysis for each improvement package are presented below. 


Table 6.7 Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts 

Generalized Study Area 

Land Use/ 

Open 

Space 

Air 

Quality 

Noise 

Potential for Impacts to 

Cultural/ Wetlands, 

Historic Floodplains, 

Resources Coastal Zones Demographics 

Visual 

Resources 

Hazardous 

Materials 

Operational, Policy and Low-Cost Capital Package 

Manhattan Curb Space Manhattan-Bronx Study Area 

Management 

HOV Lane Access on Gowanus Brooklyn-Queens Study Area 

Expressway 

Toll Policy All Study Areas 

CVO/ITS and Related Actions All Study Areas 

Reform New York State Tax All Study Areas 

Policy 

Highbridge Interchange (low Manhattan-Bronx Study Area 

capital) 

Gowanus Expressway Ramps Brooklyn-Queens Study Area 

from Brooklyn waterfront 

Truck Restrictions on Canal Manhattan-Bronx Study Area 

Street Corridor 

Operational Improvements on Westchester and Rockland 

Hudson Line 

Counties Study Area, 

Manhattan-Bronx Study Area 

Harlem River Yard 


Improvements 

Expanded Railcar Floats Brooklyn-Queens Study Area 

TOFC Clearance-Bay Ridge and 

Montauk (west) Corridors 

Freight Ferries 

Freight Villages 

Brooklyn-Queens Study Area 

Brooklyn-Queens Study Area, 


Westchester and Rockland 


Manhattan-Bronx Study Area, 


Nassau and Suffolk Counties 

Study Area

Table 6.7 Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts (continued) 

Generalized Study Area 

Land Use/ 

Open 

Space 

Air 

Quality 

Noise 

Potential for Impacts to 

Cultural/ Wetlands, 

Historic Floodplains, 

Resources Coastal Zones Demographics 

Visual 

Resources 

Hazardous 

Materials 

Highway System Improvements Package 

Highbridge Interchange (major) Manhattan-Bronx Study Area 

Connector road for Cross-Bronx Manhattan-Bronx Study Area 

Expressway 

Service Roads for Staten Island Staten Island Study Area 

Expressway 

Extend Clearview Expressway Brooklyn-Queens Study Area 

to JFK Airport 

Expand Capacity on Goethals Staten Island Study Area 

Bridge 

Truck Height/Weight Vertical Brooklyn-Queens Study Area 

Clearance-on BQE 

Sheridan 


Expressway/Bruckner 

Interchange with Hunts Point 

connector 

Rail System Improvements Package 


Brooklyn-Queens Study Area 

Maspeth Intermodal Terminal Brooklyn-Queens Study Area 

Doublestack and Other 

Clearances 

Westchester and Rockland 


Manhattan-Bronx Study Area, 


Nassau and Suffolk Counties 

Study Area 

Legend 

No impact Positive impact 

Moderate or site-specific impact Adverse impact 

Significant impact


7.0 Financing 

The NYMTC region faces significant capital financing needs for freight. Historically, it 

was believed that the private sector, which operates most freight services, would take care 

of these needs, driven by profit and the need to expand. Now, freight needs have come to 

be considered as societal needs as well due to the externalities generated by freight 

movement. These externalities include congestion, air pollution, community impacts, and 

wear and tear on the infrastructure. In addition, in the NYMTC region, unlike in many 

areas, much of the rail freight infrastructure is publicly owned but privately operated. For 

these reasons, various levels of government have proposed or implemented projects and 

programs to address freight needs. Governments at the Federal, state, and local levels 

have made limited funding available for some categories of freight projects. 

The purpose of this section of the freight plan is to: 

• Describe the financial needs of freight movement in the NYMTC region; 

• Examine issues relating to finance; 

• Summarize funding sources; and 

• Discuss follow up activities. 

• 7.1 Financial Needs 

The NYMTC Regional Transportation Plan specifies transportation capital funding needs 

broken down by state of good repair, normal replacement, and capacity expansion. The 

Plan identifies $143 billion in projects during the years 2000 through 2025, versus a likely 

funding allocation of $150 billion from all Federal, state, and local sources. Because under 

Federal regulations regional plans must be financially constrained, the Program of Projects 

is driven by an estimate of available funding, and not by an estimate of need. The transportation 

needs of the region far exceed available funding. This relationship of projects, 

funding, and needs is shown in Figure 7.1. 

Based on the limited cost estimates made available for this study, projects identified in 

Section 5.0 for further advancement or study would cost approximately $2 billion. These 

projects have cost estimates in the right-hand column of Tables ES.1 and 5.1. In addition, 

the Cross Harbor tunnel and ancillary facilities would cost between $4.4 and $7.3 billion, 

depending on whether a single or double tunnel system was constructed. 



Figure 7.1 Projected RTP Financial Analysis (2000-2025) 

Needs versus Resources 

Dollars (in Billions) 

Vision Element 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

Current TIP – 

$1 Billion 

SAS – 

$16 Billion 

Funding Available for Other Improvements 

$150 Billion 

including 

SAS and ESA 

$143 Billion 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

Federal – 

$50 Billion; 

State/Local/ 

Other – 

$91 Billion 

LIRR 

ESA – 

$6.3 Billion 

State of Good 

Repair – 

$121 Billion 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Resources 

Needs 

These estimates do not include the costs of potential major highway improvements that 

would benefit both passenger and freight transport, such as the improvements to the 

Highbridge Interchange, continuous service roads on the Cross Bronx and Staten Island 

Expressways, removal of the height clearance restriction on the Brooklyn-Queens 

Expressway, and as yet undefined improvements to the JFK Airport corridors. Taken 

together, these projects would comprise a multi-billion dollar highway investment program. 

• 7.2 Issues Relating to Finance 

The NYMTC region faces a growing gap between the demand for transportation 

improvements and the likely supply of funding available from Federal, state, regional, 

and local sources. Choices will have to be made about which projects receive priority for 

advancement. 



The region requires dedicated and predictable funding for all modes of freight transportation. 

The highway freight needs discussed in this plan have no dedicated funding 

source save for the NYS Industrial Access Program, although existing sources at the 

Federal and state level are often used. For example, traditional Federal funding sources 

such as Surface Transportation Program funds (STP) or Highway Bridge Repair and 

Replacement funds can be used to improve clearances for interstate standard trucks, and 

Interstate Highway funds can be used to increase highway capacity. To the extent that 

funds could be spent to expand capacity or to better manage the regional highway system, 

this would benefit truck freight. However, little highway expansion is foreseen for a variety 

of reasons, including funding constraints, community opposition, and environmental 

issues (the region is in non-attainment of Federal air quality standards). These constraints 

do not preclude capital improvements that would address traffic bottlenecks or improve 

road geometries and clearances. Nationally, public/private funding has been used for 

projects that provide connections to limited access highways but not for the highways 

themselves. 

The rail funding situation is complicated by the fact that most of the rail infrastructure 

used for freight in the NYMTC region is publicly owned but privately operated by either a 

Class 1, regional, or shortline railroads. This means that public funds must be made available 

and/or public/private partnerships created. The public ownership of rail freight 

infrastructure provide certain advantages in that the responsible agencies make capital 

improvements and maintain the system so as to benefit both passenger and freight transportation. 

Public ownership also presents certain challenges given the natural primacy 

accorded to maintaining the viability of the region’s massive passenger rail system. In 

addition to the facilities owned by state and local agencies, Amtrak owns portions of the 

Northeast Corridor. One section, the Hell Gate Bridge, carries almost all of the rail freight 

traffic that currently reaches geographic Long Island. This section requires a significant 

sum of money for track and deck improvements solely to keep it in a state of good repair. 

In addition, these improvements are necessary to support heavier rail freight cars. 

The large private railroads spend large sums of their own funds to maintain their existing 

systems and do not have the capital for large new projects. Evidence of this is the operating 

ratios, which in most cases exceed 70 percent of most Class 1 railroads. This leaves 

little capital available for large expansion projects. According to the Freight Rail Bottom 

Line Report commissioned by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, America’s Class 1 railroads could have difficulty providing additional capacity 

in the future. The report examined the capacity that would be available under several 

financing scenarios. Under a constrained investment scenario with railroads providing 

additional investment above that provided today they could accommodate additional 

carload traffic but could not keep pace with growing demands. 1 The report estimates that 

Class 1 railroad state of good repair nationwide could cost $4 billion to $5 billion annually 

over the next 20 years and another $3.5 billion annually for improvements beyond state of 

1 

Invest In America, Freight Rail Bottom Line Report, American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, page 3. 



good repair. Further, shortline railroads have limited capital funding for projects that 

directly affect them, such as providing structures that can handle 286,000 pound per axle 

freight cars. See Section 2.0 for more information on the undercapitalization of railroads. 

New York State formerly provided rail freight funding through its Local Rail Assistance 

Program. This program still exists legislatively but currently is unfunded. Recently, New 

York State, in conjunction with the PANYNJ, provided a total of $40 million dedicated to 

the improvement of rail freight. This money will be used for projects related to state of 

good repair and system enhancement (such as TOFC clearance on the Hudson Line). 

However, the funding is a single application and may not be repeated, and will not result 

in major capacity expansion. 

A key component in freight is storage and distribution facilities. The need for additional 

warehousing and distribution facilities is normally fulfilled by the private sector based on 

the needs of operators of these types of facilities. Where the cost of warehousing and distribution 

proves too onerous for the private sector, the public sector can provide tax 

incentives or zoning opportunities. 

• 7.3 Summary of Funding Sources 

Many of the highway actions described in this report have straightforward funding 

options. Most of these actions would improve both freight and passenger transportation, 

and hence do not need to be justified as one or the other. The Federal Highway 

Administration distributes Highway Trust Fund revenue from the Federal gas tax to states 

on a formula basis, and states in turn distribute these funds among urban and rural areas. 

The Federal government will typically fund up to 80 percent of the cost of eligible projects. 

Future funding amounts will depend on any potential changes in the formula allocation 

which may emerge from the reauthorization of the TEA-21 legislation in 2004, as well as 

overall authorization levels. 

In comparison, freight rail and marine actions receive little Federal funding. There is no 

Federal rail freight equivalent to the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts discretionary 

funding program or Federal Highway programs. The Federal short line funding 

source, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Local Rail Freight Assistance Program, 

was last funded in 1995 and its authorization expired in 1994. Most rail freight operations 

in the United States are owned and operated by private, for-profit corporations, complicating 

the task of public participation in rail freight projects. The best hope for funding 

such projects is the development of a new dedicated Federal funding program specifically 

for this purpose under TEA-21 reauthorization or the Congressional earmarking of funds 

for specific projects under existing categories. 

The two major legislative initiatives currently under consideration are the Congressional 

initiative known as the Transportation Equity Act Legacy for Users (TEALU) and the 

Administration’s proposed Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 



Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA). New freight-related initiatives are included in both but 

are far more significant in TEALU. 2 

TEALU includes the following features: 

• Funds five programs specifically designed to improve the movement of freight; 

• Provides close to $2 billion in funding to border states for highway projects that will 

improve the safe and efficient movement of people and goods at or across the border 

between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada; 

• Provides $3 billion in additional funding over six years to states for improvements on 

freight intermodal connectors, public roads leading to and from major intermodal 

facilities; 

• Creates a new program to fund projects of regional and national significance that will 

have a significant impact on the movement of goods and people beyond the immediate 

local area of the project; 

• Provides $5 billion over six years to fund a National Corridor Infrastructure 

Improvement program to fund regional and multi-state corridor projects that will 

improve mobility and economic growth in areas underserved by existing highway 

infrastructure; 

• Creates a new program to fund the construction of dedicated truck lanes to improve 

the safe and efficient movement of freight by separating truck traffic from traffic in 

regular lanes; and 

• Provides $150 million to deploy and expand the Commercial Vehicle Information 

Systems and Networks (CVISN) program. The program improves commercial motor 

vehicle efficiency by allowing motor carriers to by pass safety inspections and weigh 

stations, based on their safety records. This reduces vehicle downtime during roadside 

inspections. 

SAFETEA contains several proposals to broaden the ability of the Federal government to 

participate in freight projects: 

• Freight Gateways Program – This program would provide capital funding to address 

infrastructure and freight operational needs at freight transportation gateways. States 

would be allowed to “obligate funds apportioned to it for publicly owned intermodal 

freight transportation projects that provide community and highway benefits by 

addressing economic, congestion, security, safety, and environmental issues associated 

with freight transportation gateways.” 3 Eligible projects “may include publicly owned 

2 

HR 3550. 

3 

SAFETEA Sec. 1205(a), Sec. 325(d)(1). 



intermodal freight transfer facilities, access to such facilities, and operational improvements 

for such facilities (including capital investment for Intelligent Transportation 

Systems), except that projects located within the boundaries of port terminals shall 

only include the transportation infrastructure modifications necessary to facilitate 

direct intermodal access into and out of such a port.” 4 Public/private partnerships 

would be allowed. 

• Freight Intermodal Connections – A funding set-aside is proposed within the 

National Highway System (NHS) funding program for NHS routes connecting to 

intermodal freight terminals. These routes will share the funding set aside with 

Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) connectors to strategic military deployment 

ports. 5 

• TIFIA Eligibility – The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 

(TIFIA) was created in TEA-21 to provide credit assistance to major projects of national 

significance. Under the SAFETEA proposal, it would be amended to expand the number 

of freight transportation facilities eligible for credit assistance. Eligible facilities 

would include public and private freight facilities, as well as public and private intermodal 

freight facilities. Any improvements at port terminals, however, are eligible for 

TIFIA credit assistance only if they are necessary to facilitate direct intermodal port 

access. Projects receiving both public and private sector funds, including private 

facilities receiving public funding, would be eligible to apply for TIFIA credit 

assistance. The threshold project cost eligibility for TIFIA credit assistance would be 

reduced from $100 million to $50 million. 6 

• Private Activity Bonds – Private activity bonds are tax-exempt bonds issued for projects 

that are owned or leased by private enterprises. Under SAFETEA, such bonds 

would be allowed for surface freight transfer facilities, defined as “facilities for the 

transfer of freight from truck to rail or rail to truck (including any temporary storage 

facilities directly related to such transfers).” This category does not include air/rail or 

air/truck facilities, but those facilities may be eligible under existing law for taxexempt 

financing under the exemption for airport facilities. 7 

Other innovative freight financing strategies involving combinations of public and private 

financing include: 

• Toll Policy and Management – Toll and user fees on highways and rail facilities can 

play an important role in financing multimodal transportation investment as has long 

been practiced in the New York region by agencies such as PANYNJ and the MTA, 

4 

SAFETEA Sec. 1205(a), Sec. 325(d)(2). 

5 

SAFETEA Sec. 1205(c). 

6 

SAFETEA Sec. 1304(a)(3). 

7 

SAFETEA Sec. 9004. 



both of which use highway bridge and tunnel tolls to cross-subsidize public transportation 

and other activities. Tolls can also serve an important function in facility traffic 

management. Many innovations in toll policies have occurred in the region during the 

past decade including variable pricing by time of day, vehicle class, and use of 

E-ZPass transponders. These policies have resulted, for example, in shifting some 

truck traffic out of the peak periods. The creative adaptation of toll policy continues to 

hold promise as a major source of funding for all types of transportation investment in 

the region. A regional study should be initiated to consider a wide menu of tolling 

and financing options. 

The region already is unique in its reliance on vehicular toll revenues, not only to 

financing crossings and major highways, but to provide cross-subsidy to transit and 

other transportation facilities that balance demand and maintain mobility on the 

regional transportation network. Toll authorities in most instances rely on this source 

as the primary means of operating and maintaining the tolled facilities. Pooling of toll 

revenues with other resources provides a major source of support for existing 

PANYNJ and MTA capital programs. Additional use of this mechanism is a potential 

means to broaden the resources available for highway, rail, and other transportation 

improvements that would benefit regional goods movement. Toll structure refinements 

for different facilities and vehicle classes may also support other network management 

programs. Priorities for allocating this limited capital resource, and issues of 

equity among users and affected communities, would present a challenge in attempting 

to increase the region’s reliance on toll financing for transportation improvements. 

• Rail User Fees – Shippers using rail or the railroads themselves could be assessed a 

surcharge (which they may or may not chose to pass on to customers). The advantage 

of this approach is that the beneficiaries of the investments would help to pay for 

them. The disadvantages are that the railroads are relatively under capitalized corporations 

and are reluctant to pay for major infrastructure improvements; the use of privately 

operated facilities by competing carriers would need to be addressed; and 

increasing the cost of rail shipment would discourage the very effect it is trying to 

achieve – increasing rail mode share. 

• Private Development of Facilities – The greatest potential for private contributions 

probably lies in the development of yards and terminals that could be operated essentially 

as “shared asset facilities” for the benefit of all users, much on the model of the 

remaining Conrail facilities in the region. Anchor tenants (large shippers/receivers) 

who would be prime beneficiaries of a specific yard development could be contributors. 

Railroads or intermodal marketing companies also could be financial participants. 

• Special Purpose Needs – A variety of special purpose shippers in the region might 

benefit from enhanced freight transportation and could be potential contributors. One 

is the NYC Department of Sanitation (NYCDOS), which faces tremendous costs in 

shipping municipal solid waste out of the region. 



• New York State’s Multimodal Program and Industrial Access Program – The 

Multimodal program was enacted in 1996 with an authorization of $350 million over 

four years. This fund has been primarily used for small projects of $1 million or less. 

For example, the fund recently provided one million dollars to the Noco Energy 

Corporation to expand its rail terminal in Towanda, New York. The Industrial Access 

Program provides no interest loans for road or rail access to industrial or commercial 

sites. One of the criteria for project selection is employment generation. 

Other proposals to improve public funding of freight projects have been advanced over 

the last few years, including special regional infrastructure banks for freight projects that 

have benefits beyond a single state, and tax credit bonds to finance a competitive or 

formula-driven list of projects. 

• 7.4 Recommendations 

The foregoing analysis has demonstrated the need for setting priorities and making 

choices within and across funding categories and modes – highways and rail, passenger 

and freight. It is highly unlikely that all of the major transportation investments currently 

being studied in the region will be funded in the next round of Federal transportation 

authorization, or beyond in the coming decades. This study has attempted to identify 

projects that would be most beneficial to freight movement in the region, and to chart a 

path forward for decision-makers. If the region cannot agree upon a shared agenda for 

transportation investment, it will lose out in the competition with other regions for 

earmarked projects and other funding sources. 

Other initiatives can be taken at the state and local levels: 

• Freight infrastructure needs require dedicated sources. New York State should 

consider refinancing its Local Rail Assistance Program along the lines of programs in 

Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois. 

• Public/private or joint funding may have applicability in the construction and 

operation of rail freight yards, intermodal facilities, and highway facilities. Public/ 

private funding has been used for projects such as those shown in Table 7.1. This type 

of financial arrangement helps maximize the amount of funding that could be available 

for a project. A report by the Federal Highway Administration titled Funding and 

Institutional Options for Freight Infrastructure Improvements, stresses that “project 

partnership formation is essential in developing major freight infrastructure projects.” 

Decision-makers should examine opportunities in zoning and tax incentives to 

encourage developers to become financially involved in the construction of warehousing 

and distribution facilities. 



Table 7.1 

Examples of Public/Private Partnerships 

Project Name Sources 

Cost 

Federal 

Funds Used 

Federal 

Amount Project Type All Funding 

Columbia Slough Expansion 

Bridge Port Access 

$ 6.0 M CMAQ, ISTEA $3.1 M Federal Rail Federal aid, private 

Bensenville Rail Yard $35.0 M CMAQ $2.1 M Federal Rail Federal aid, private 

Stockton Airport Access $ 1.8 M Airport Improve. 

Prog. 

$1.4 M Highway Grants, private 

Kedzie Stoplight $ 3.5 M CMAQ $0.72 M Highway Federal aid/private 

Guilford Intermodal Yard $ 0.7 M CMAQ $0.7 M Private 

Intermodal yard 

Private equipment 

lease/Federal aid 

Source: Funding and Institutional Options for Freight Infrastructure Improvements, FHWA.

nymtc regional freight plan - New York Metropolitan Transportation ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?