Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
Joel P. EttingerExecutive Director
September 11, 2009
Bronson FoxPartnership for New York CityOne Battery Park PlazaNew York, NY 10004
Re: Certification of Metropolitan Planning Organization Criteria for TIGER Applications
Dear Potential Tiger Grant Applicant:
This letter is in response to the June 17, 2009 Federal Register Notice of Funding Availability for TIGER grants,pages 28760-61, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-14262.pdf, which indicates that awarded TIGERapplications must be included in all relevant metropolitan planning documents. The New York MetropolitanTransportation Council (NYMTC) which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for New York City,Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley will take all of the steps necessary to incorporate Moynihan StationProject-Phase 1 in the metropolitan planning process if the United States Department of Transportation(USDOT) selects it to receive TIGER funding. Specifically, NYMTC will amend its Regional TransportationPlan, Transportation Improvement Program and review Moynihan Station Project-Phase 1 for compliance withthe United States Environmental Protection Agency‘s Transportation Conformity Rule as necessary, prior to the project award. To further facilitate the alignment of Moynihan Station Project-Phase 1 with the MPO process,NYMTC will as necessary, conduct public review and interagency consultations for all potential TIGERprojects within our planning boundaries during the USDOT selection process to ensure inclusion of all selectedprojects in the relevant planning documents prior to award.
If you need additional information, please contact Angelina Foster of my staff at, [email protected].
Sincerely,
Joel P. EttingerExecutive DirectorNYMTC
September 14, 2009 Mr. Robin Stout President Moynihan Station Development Corporation 633 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Stout, I am writing on behalf of the Partnership for New York City in support of the New York State Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) application for funding from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program for the Moynihan Station project in New York City. The Partnership for New York City is a nonprofit organization comprised of business leaders from all sectors of New York’s $1 trillion regional economy. We are dedicated to maintaining New York as the world capital of finance, commerce and innovation. As the nation emerges from the current economic crisis, a strong recovery will be based in part on strategic investments in key infrastructure projects such as Moynihan Station. Critical to a competitive future is the availability of modern and efficient transportation hubs. This is especially important in urban centers like the New York City Metro Region, which depends more heavily on public transit than anywhere else in the country. Moynihan Station will have a significant impact on the region’s economy by creating new jobs and bringing in further public and private investment. Once completed, the new Moynihan Station will create a vibrant center for commuters, with grand public space, retail and amenities akin to Grand Central Terminal. It will also reinforce two other major transportation projects on the drawing board on the Far West Side of Manhattan: the extension of the No. 7 line, which will serve to further open up the Far West Side, and a much needed second commuter rail tunnel underneath the Hudson, known as Access to the Region’s Core (ARC).
Mr. Robin Stout September 14, 2009 Page 2 And, just yesterday, Amtrak announced that they have also agreed to use the proposed terminal; thus, the new Moynihan Station will also be the regional hub for long distance train travel on the eastern seaboard. Taken together, these three projects will help open up the last great frontier for development on the island of Manhattan—for offices, residences, tourism and conventions. Combined with the planned expansion of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, the Far West Side promises to become the logical extension of the largest central business district in the country. We urge support of ESDC’s application for TIGER funding for Moynihan Station, which is a key component of the city’s and region’s economic recovery and future growth. Sincerely, Kathryn Wylde President & CEO
Steven Spinola President
September 14, 2009 Mr. Robin Stout President Moynihan Station Development Corporation 633 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Stout: The Real Estate Board of New York is a broadly based trade association with approximately 12,000 owners, builders, managers, brokers and other real estate professionals active in New York. We strongly support the New York State Department of Transportation’s application to the United State Department of Transportation for funding under the American Recovery and Reinvesment Act Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants Program for Phase 1 of the Moynihan Station project. Penn Station is a crucial transportation hub in the city’s Midtown Central Business District. Serving an estimated 640,000 passengers from the Long Island Rail Road, New Jersey Transit, and Amtrak, the station is heavily trafficked and is a critical link to the city’s subway system. Notwithstanding its role as the vital center of rail transit in New York City, Penn Station has serious deficiencies that impair its service delivery and more importantly are obstacles to future growth in the area around, and to the West of, the station. A few years ago, the city completed a major rezoning (Hudson Yards) that provided significant expansion potential for Midtown’s central business district. This rezoned area including Penn Station and the Farley Post Office Building as well as additional areas to the west created the opportunity for more than 40 million square feet of commercial and residential development. A major commercial corridor of this expansion area was along West 34th Street. The western rail yard is presently being rezoned which would add to the growth potential of this area.
The first phase of the Penn Station project proposed by the Port Authority is important to addressing the existing deficiencies, a necessary first step in the Station’s expansion and essential if the commercial and residential development anticipated for the Hudson Yards area is to be realized. The start of Phase 1 would provide needed financial investment, job creation and tax revenue for the city and the state. More importantly, it would send a loud and clear message that the lynchpin of development in Hudson Yards, namely significant improvements and expansion of Penn Station, is on its way to becoming a reality. Starting the work now when such construction activity is desperately needed would be a catalyst for sustained development in Hudson Yards when the financial markets return to a more traditional level of activity. For these reasons we support the TIGER application of State DOT. Sincerely,
Steven Spinola
2
Friends of Moynihan Station • c/o Regional Plan Association 4 Irving Place, 7th Floor • New York, NY 10003 • (212) 253-5981
Regional Plan Association, Municipal Art Society, New York Landmarks Conservancy, General Contractors Association, the Honorable Scott Stringer, the Honorable Richard Gottfried,
the Honorable Tom Duane, New York Building Congress, New York State Laborers, Tri‐State Transportation Campaign, Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee,
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation League of New York State, Transportation Alternatives, American Planning Association New York Chapter
Robin Stout September 14, 2009 President, Moynihan Station Development Corporation 633 Third Avenue, 36th flr. New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Stout:
We write to support the Moynihan Station Development Corporation’s application for a TIGER grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation for Phase I of Moynihan Station.
Moynihan Station is one of the most critical civic and infrastructure projects planned for the New York Region this decade. It represents an opportunity to increase rail ridership, promote economic growth, jumpstart the development of the Far West Side, create thousands of construction jobs, and breathe new life into the historic Farley building.
Phase I of the project will have significant impacts and is the necessary first step to completing overall project. As an independent project, the merits are clear: fuller and better use will be made of the existing platforms and by pushing the boundaries of station entrance and egress to the western side of the station, transit‐oriented development can begin along Ninth Avenue.
Additionally, we believe an investment in Moynihan Station can be leveraged in several ways:
Accommodating Demand Amtrak's Northeast Corridor Master Plan envisions huge increases in demand in the corridor over the next decades. Yet this level of growth cannot be supported by the existing facilities (both the track configuration and Penn Station itself). If Amtrak is to grow as its master plan envisions ‐‐ or even faster, which is a possibility given the phenomenal increases in demand in the last couple of years and the additional attention and funding coming from the federal government ‐‐ new track capacity and new station capacity must be added to Penn Station / Moynihan. Moynihan Station is designed to increase Amtrak's peak hour capacity from 1,600 seats to 4,000.
Building the Amtrak Brand Moynihan Station will become the flagship station for the Northeast Corridor, and will help build brand image and identity as a larger and larger share of long‐distance travelers choose rail over air or cars.
Increasing Reliability Moynihan Station will also significantly improve the system's reliability and recovery potential in case of a track outage or other problem. This is very significant and arguably rail's biggest competitive advantage over air in the North East Corridor.
Friends of Moynihan Station • c/o Regional Plan Association 4 Irving Place, 7th Floor • New York, NY 10003 • (212) 253-5981
The Friends of Moynihan Station, a coalition of leading civic organizations, business groups and elected officials, offer our support for this application and the entire project, and stand ready to offer any assistance in making Moynihan Station a reality.
Sincerely,
Bob Yaro, Regional Plan Association
Vin Cipolla, Municipal Art Society
Peg Breen, New York Landmarks Conservancy
Felice Farber, General Contractors Association
and the rest of the Friends of Moynihan Station
cc: Senator Charles Schumer cc: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand cc: Andrew Lynn, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey cc: Timothy Gilchrest, Office of New York State Governor David Paterson cc: Christopher Ward, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
AFFILIATED WITH THEBUILDING & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON D.C.CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF NEW YORK STATETRADES COUNCIL
Of GREATER NEW YORK AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR OF CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
GARY LaBARBERA PRESIDENT
September 14, 2009
Mr. Robin Stout President Moynihan Station Development Corporation 633 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Stout:
The Building and Construction Trades Council (BCTC) of Greater New York is an umbrella organization which consists of local affiliates of 15 national and international unions representing 100,000 working men and women in New York City.
We write in strong support of the New York State Department of Transportation's application to the United State Department of Transportation for funding under the American Recovery and Reinvesment Act Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants Program for Phase 1 of the Moynihan Station project.
Penn Station is a crucial transportation hub in the city's Midtown central Business District. Serving an estimated 640,000 passengers from the Long Island Rail Road, New Jersey Transit, and Amtrak, the station is heavily trafficked and is a critical link to the city's subway system.
Notwithstanding its role as the vital center of rail transit in New York City, Penn Station has serious deficiencies that impair its functionality and its ability to grow with the region over time. The TIGER funding would help to jumpstart Phase I of this project, proViding needed financial investment, job creation and tax revenue for the city and the state.
Perhaps most importantly for the BCTC, the Moynihan Station project would create jobs at a time when we need them most. Phase I, for which the TIGER money would be used, would create 820 construction jobs and $55.2 million in wages for our workers.
This project is vital for our members and for the region, and we support the TIGER application with no reservations.
Sincerely,
\~~~~
71 WEST 23rd STREET • SUITE 501-03 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 100100
TEL. (212) 647·0700 • FAX (212) 647·0705
~ ;171-10
September 14, 2009 Robin Stout President Moynihan Station Development Corp. 633 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Dear Ms. Stout, I am writing to you in support of the construction of Phase 1 of the Moynihan Station project. The Building Trades Employers’ Association (BTEA) is an organization representing 28 union contractor associations and over 1,700 construction managers, general contractors, and specialty trade contractors doing business in New York City. The BTEA supports this project in a time when jobs are needed the most. The Phase 1 of Moynihan Station will employ hundreds of New Yorkers. This project will contribute millions of dollars in taxes to the state and the city. This is much needed considering that the city and state budgets predict deficits of billions of dollars for 2010. A transportation hub is critical to any large city. It develops a perception and a reputation worldwide. If New York City wants to remain as one of the top cities in the world it must be capable of attracting individuals and must offer easy accessible transportation to and from the city. Thank you. Sincerely, President & CEO LJC:JLC
APPENDIX C
MOYNIHAN STATIONEMISSIONS BENEFITS OF WEST END CONCOURSE EXTENSION
Analysis Year: 2015
ASSUMPTIONS FOR PASSENGER VEHICLE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS:Average Vehicle Occupancy: 1.351 passengers/car (Source: Average Vehicle Occupancy Data Region 11 Winter 1994/1995,
NYSDOT Memorandum from B. Kirch to L. Malsam, November 16, 1995)
Emission Factors:Summer (NOx,
VOCs)Winter (CO,
PM) NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5Manhattan 9.2 10.7 0.383 0.556 9.380 0.0248 0.0113Rest of Region 27.9 31.8 0.233 0.338 8.436 0.0248 0.0113
Amtrak - Empire LineAssumed Average Manhattan Trip Distance: -1 mile, arterial roadwaysAssumed Average Trip Distance in Rest of Region: -49.75 miles, freeway (average of four car routes within region)
1kg= 1.10E-03 tons
NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5Manhattan -10,978 -4.2 -6.1 -103 -0.27 -0.12 0.00 -0.01 -0.11 -0.0003 -0.0001Rest of Region -546,155 -127 -184 -4,607 -13.54 -6.17 -0.14 -0.20 -5.08 -0.0149 -0.0068
-131 -190 -4,710 -13.82 -6.30 -0.14 -0.21 -5.19 -0.0152 -0.0069
Amtrak - North on Northeast CorridorAssumed Average Manhattan Trip Distance: -1 mile, arterial roadwaysAssumed Average Trip Distance in Rest of Region: -40.75 miles, freeway (all autos and SUVs, average of two car routes within region)
NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5Manhattan -28,708 -11 -16 -269 -0.71 -0.32 -0.01 -0.02 -0.30 -0.0008 -0.0004Rest of Region -1,169,847 -272 -395 -9,868 -29.01 -13.22 -0.30 -0.44 -10.88 -0.0320 -0.0146
-283 -411 -10,138 -29.72 -13.54 -0.31 -0.45 -11.17 -0.0328 -0.0149
Amtrak - South on Northeast CorridorAssumed Average Trip Distance: -50 miles, arterial roadways
NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.538,784 28,708 -1,435,395 -550 -798 -13,464 -35.60 -16.22 -0.61 -0.88 -14.84 -0.0392 -0.0179
NJ TransitAssumed Average Trip Distance: -35 miles, arterial roadways
NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5160,000 118,431 -4,145,078 -1,589 -2,303 -38,880 -102.80 -46.84 -1.75 -2.54 -42.86 -0.1133 -0.0516
*Speed data from NYMTC's March 2009 Conformity Regional Analysis (2012 data)** MOBILE6.2 emission factors for LDGV (includes autos and SUVs)***Mode Shift Estimates, September 2009
NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5
Empire Line Reduced Passenger Vehicle Emissions -0.1447 -0.2100 -5.1919 -0.0152 -0.0069North on NE Corridor Reduced Passenger Vehicle Emissions -0.3121 -0.4529 -11.1746 -0.0328 -0.0149South on NE Corridor Reduced Passenger Vehicle Emissions -0.6065 -0.8791 -14.8409 -0.0392 -0.0179NJ Transit Reduced Passenger Vehicle Emissions -1.7513 -2.5386 -42.8570 -0.1133 -0.0516
-2.8 -4.1 -74.1 -0.20 -0.09
Annual Reduction of CO2
Annual trips via rail diverted from autos (Amtrak): 92,400Average trip length assumed (miles): -150
Annual trips via rail diverted from autos (NJ Transit): 160,000Average trip length assumed (miles): -35
Total VMT diverted from autos: -14,404,145 (assumes total average trip length)Gallons Gasoline: -651,771 (assumes 22.1 mpg)
CO2 (tons): -6,378 (assumes 8,877 grams of CO2 per gallon of gasoline)
Total: -6,378 tons CO2 per year
AMTRAKAnnual Induced
Ridership***
14,831
Annual Reduced Vehicle Trips
Total Annual Reductions (tons)
10,978
Total Annual Reductions (kilograms)
Average Speed* Emission Factors**
Annual Reduced VMT (vehicle-miles)
Total Annual Reductions (kilograms) Total Annual Reductions (tons)
38,784 28,708
AMTRAKAnnual Induced
Ridership***Annual Reduced Vehicle
TripsAnnual Reduced VMT (vehicle-
miles)
Total Reductions (kilograms) Total Reductions (tons)AMTRAK
Annual Induced Ridership***
Annual Reduced Vehicle Trips
Annual Reduced VMT (vehicle-miles)
Total Annual Reductions (kilograms) Total Annual Reductions (tons)NJ TRANSIT
Annual Induced Ridership***
Annual Reduced Vehicle Trips
Annual Reduced VMT (vehicle-miles)
Annual Reductions of Criteria Pollutants (tons)
Total
APPENDIX D
Moynihan Station Project-Phase I: Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis Report
September 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF KEY RESULTS ................................................. 1 2. KEY ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................. 2
Real Discount Rate ..................................................................................................................... 2 Evaluation Period........................................................................................................................ 2 Travel Time Savings Considerations and Value of Time Assumptions ..................................... 3
General Discussion of Travel Time Savings .......................................................................... 3 Value of Time Assumptions ................................................................................................... 3
Annualizing Factor Assumptions................................................................................................ 3 3. ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS ................................................................. 4 4. BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION ............................................................. 12
Travel Time Savings ................................................................................................................. 12 Reductions in Vehicle Operating Costs and Auto Ownership Costs........................................ 13 Parking Cost Savings ................................................................................................................ 14 Accident Cost Savings .............................................................................................................. 14 Environmental Benefits ............................................................................................................ 15
5. SENSITIVITY SCENARIOS............................................................................................... 16 6. ECONOMIC COSTS AND ASSUMPTIONS INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION....... 17 7. APPENDIX - KEY BENEFIT-COST EVALUATION MEASURES................................. 18
Net Present Value ..................................................................................................................... 18 Benefit/Cost Ratio..................................................................................................................... 18
ii
1
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF KEY RESULTS There are three types of quantifiable benefits associated with the Moynihan Station Phase 1 project:
o Time savings for rail passengers in and around Penn Station resulting from reduced queuing and congestion and shorter walk distances
o Incremental railroad ridership resulting from a shift to rail travel from other modes o Improved life safety conditions within the station
The primary results of the economic analysis are summarized in Exhibits 1 and 2. At a 7% real discount rate, the 2009 Present Value (PV) of the project’s total benefits is $498 million (in 2009 dollars) for the Base Case scenario. Similarly, the PV of the project costs is $178 million (in 2009 dollars). At a 3% discount rate (Scenario A), the PV of the project benefits and costs would be $1.05 billion and $204 million, respectively. Exhibit 1: Summary of Benefits at 7% Real Discount Rate in the Base Case Scenario
Benefit Category
Total Discounted Value of Benefits
(2009 $M) Local Travel Time Savings Benefit $143.3
Intercity Travel Time Savings Benefit $25.5
Vehicle Operating & Ownership Cost Savings Benefits $63.4
Parking Cost Saving Benefits $9.5
Accident Reduction Safety Benefits $239.8
Environmental Benefits $16.9
TOTAL $498.4 To add some quantification to the project’s life-safety benefits, a sensitivity analysis was also performed to analyze a hypothetical scenario where two accidents have a 10% probability of occurring in 2020, resulting in 175 casualties. For this scenario (Scenario B), the probability-weighted present value of the economic benefit of avoiding these impacts is estimated to be $50 million (using a 7% discount rate).1 If these benefits were included in the benefits analysis, the present value of the project’s total economic benefits would be $548 million. Using a 3% discount rate (Scenario C), the present value would be $1.12 billion (in 2009 dollars). Exhibit 2 summarizes the Benefit-Cost (B/C) analysis results for the Base Case and the three Sensitivity Scenarios as described above.
1 If the scenario assumed the accidents had a 100% chance of occurring in year 2020, the economic benefit of avoiding these accidents would be approximately $500 million in present value terms.
Exhibit 2: Summary of B/C Ratios and Net Present Values
Characteristics
Scenario Real Discount
Rate
Life-Safety Benefits Test Case Included
B/C Ratio
Net Present Value
(2009 $ millions)
Base Case Scenario 7% No 2.8 $320.1
Scenario A 3% No 5.1 $843.4
Scenario B 7% Yes 3.1 $370.0
Scenario C 3% Yes 5.5 $919.3
The following sections describe the methodology and key assumptions used in the economic benefits analysis. This methodology and the key assumptions are consistent with the guidance USDOT has prescribed for TIGER Grant applications. It is important to note that a formal economic analysis is not a comprehensive measure of a project’s total benefits, as many benefits cannot be readily quantified and occur under conditions of uncertainty. The broader set of benefits is described in the long-term outcomes section of the TIGER Grant application.
2. KEY ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS Several analytical and procedural assumptions are required to apply economic analysis methods to the available data and unique conditions regarding the proposed Moynihan Station project. The following outlines these assumptions and their basis.
Real Discount Rate Benefits and costs are typically valued in constant (e.g., 2009) dollars to avoid having to forecast future inflation and escalate future values for benefits and costs accordingly. Even in cases where costs are expressed in future, year-of-expenditure values, they tend to be built upon estimates in constant dollars, and are easily deflated. The use of constant dollar values requires the use of a real discount rate for present value discounting (as opposed to a nominal discount rate). The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) currently requires U.S. Federal agencies to use a 7% real discount rate to evaluate public investments and regulations.2 In keeping with this standard, the analysis assumes a discount rate of 7%. An alternate scenario with a discount rate of 3% was also estimated.
Evaluation Period Benefits and costs are typically evaluated for a period that includes the construction period and an operations period ranging from 20-50 years after the initial project investments are completed. For this analysis, an evaluation period of 2009 through 2054 was assumed (including 40 years of benefits starting substantial project completion in 2015), based on the expected useful life of the investments.
2 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer03.cfm#s3
2
Travel Time Savings Considerations and Value of Time Assumptions
General Discussion of Travel Time Savings Travel time savings include walk time, wait time, and in-vehicle travel time savings. Travel time is considered a cost to users, and its value depends on the disutility (cost or dis-benefit) that travelers attribute to time spent traveling. Higher disutility is associated with walk and wait time because users tend to find this more onerous than in-vehicle travel time. A reduction in travel time would translate into more time available for work, leisure, or other activities, which travelers value.
Value of Time Assumptions Travel time savings must be converted from hours to dollars in order for benefits to be aggregated and compared against costs in the analysis. This is traditionally performed by assuming that travel time is valued as a percentage of the average wage rate, with different percentages for different trip purposes. For this analysis, assumptions for value of time (VOT) estimates were derived from USDOT’s Value of Time guidelines.3 This involves valuing travel time for a business purpose higher than a trip for a non-business or personal purpose, and walk & wait time higher than general (primarily in-vehicle) time. Based on USDOT guidance for estimating value of travel times, the following values were used to value the time saved by travelers due to this phase of the Moynihan Station project.4 • Local travel general travel time: The value of all local travel is based on the USDOT
guidance of $13.40 (in 2000 dollars) per hour corresponding to all purposes for surface modes.
• Local travel walk time: Research has established that the time spent in waiting and walking during travel is perceived to be more onerous than that spent inside a moving vehicle. The Moynihan Station project will lead to significant improvements in walk time within and around the station. Time savings specific to walk time savings was assumed to be valued at $21.10 (in 2000 dollars).
• Intercity travel: The value of $19.80 (2000 dollars) for intercity travel time was also obtained from USDOT Guidance on Value of Time for Economic Analysis. This value corresponded to all purposes (included business and personal) for all surface modes.
Annualizing Factor Assumptions Estimates of travel time were developed on a daily or basis. Accordingly, annualizing factors are necessary to convert these daily estimates to yearly values. The following annualizing factors (days per year) are assumed: Amtrak Intercity: 277 Commuter (NJT, LIRR): 284
3 http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf. 4 The specific values of time were obtained from Revised USDOT Guidance: Value of Travel Time in Economic Analysis, 2003 in 2000 dollars and escalated to 2009 dollars based on a factor of 1.26 as proposed by USDOT in Response to Questions and Requests for Clarification Submitted to DOT regarding the TIGER Discretionary Grants Program, August 28, 2009.
3
3. ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS There are three types of quantifiable benefits associated with the Moynihan Station Phase 1 project:
o Time savings for rail passengers in and around Penn Station resulting from reduced queuing and congestion and shorter walk distances
o Incremental railroad ridership resulting from a shift to rail travel from other modes o Improved life safety conditions within the station
Within each category, direct and secondary benefits are estimated. The time savings benefits result from four different factors: reduced time required to clear platforms following train arrivals, shorter walking distances for passengers going to or coming from the Eighth Avenue Subway and locations on the West Side of Manhattan, and reduced congestion within the Penn Station concourses. Faster Platform Clearance The introduction of new vertical access points to Platforms 3 through 6 on the west side of Eighth Avenue, with the southward extension of the West End Concourse, is a critical element of the Moynihan Station project and will help enhance the capacity and reliability of train operations and passenger-handling at the station. Following the arrival of heavily-loaded commuter trains in the weekday morning peak period, which can carry upwards of 1,600 passengers in their largest configurations, relatively long queues of passengers form at the existing stairs and escalators on Platforms 3 through 6, since all of the existing access points are concentrated on the easterly portions of these platforms. A single train arrival can produce queues lasting between five and six minutes. Two closely-spaced train arrivals at the same platform, which occurs with some regularity at Penn Station, can produce queues that last upwards of 10 minutes. The West End Concourse will provide eight additional platform stairs to serve Platforms 3 through 6 on the west side of Eighth Avenue, increasing the platform vertical circulation capacity and providing a better balance of egress points along the platforms. A spreadsheet model of Platforms 3 through 6 was developed to analyze queuing and platform clearance conditions during the weekday morning peak hour. Each arriving train at these four platforms is analyzed. A hypothetical train schedule, train lengths (consists), passenger loads and track assignments were developed, matching the level of ridership demand projected for the year 2015. This hypothetical train schedule was developed to aid in the design of the Moynihan Station project and was based on information obtained from Amtrak, LIRR and NJT. Each train was spotted at the platform based on its length and current railroad policy with respect to the positioning of trains along the platform. Generally, the commuter railroads position their trains as close to the east end of the platforms as possible, since the preponderance of passenger origins and destinations are to the east of Penn Station, and the bulk of existing platform access points are on the eastern portions of the platforms. During peak periods, NJT trains generate the majority of passengers using Platforms 3 through 6. Amtrak trains also use these platforms. Amtrak trains tend to be shorter and carry fewer passengers than NJT trains; these trains generally are positioned to be centered around the existing Main concourse stairs and escalators. The spreadsheet model identifies the location of each platform vertical circulation element, and its passenger-handling capacity (expressed in passengers per minute). Arriving passengers are assigned to the available vertical circulation elements based on several factors, including proximity of the vertical circulation element to the car in which the passenger was located, and the distribution of desired passenger destinations. The former factor assigns some passengers to the first available stair or escalator. The second factor reflects the weighting of passenger
4
destinations to the east of the station and assigns a higher percentage of passengers to the stairs and escalators at the Seventh Avenue end of the station – reflecting actual observed usage patterns. A third factor distributes a share of passengers from locations that have heavy queues of arriving passengers to nearby stairs/escalators where queues dissipate more quickly – again reflecting behavior that passengers exhibit within the existing station. This analysis calculates an estimated queue time at each vertical circulation element, for each arriving train over the morning peak hour. Maximum and average queue times are calculated, and the cumulative time spent queuing for all arriving passengers, expressed in passenger-minutes, for each train and for the entire morning peak period. Separate models were developed for the existing station configuration and for the Moynihan Station Phase 1 configuration with two additional platform stairs from Platforms 3 through 6 to the extended West End Concourse. These models were analyzed for the same projected 2015 train schedule and train loading conditions, and the difference in cumulative passenger-minutes spent queuing between the two cases represents the estimated magnitude of morning peak hour passenger time savings attributable to the project. Passenger queuing at the platforms occurs throughout the four-hour morning peak period– but at somewhat lower levels than during the peak hour because of the tapering of passenger loads on board the trains. Based on historical observations, the total magnitude of platform queuing for the four-hour peak period is estimated to be approximately two times the level of queuing observed during the peak hour. The conservative simplifying assumption is made that significant platform clearance queues do not exist during the remainder of the day. The level of weekday peak period time savings associated with reduced platform queuing is multiplied by 250 to generate an estimate of the annual time savings, which are expressed in passenger-hours. In the year 2015, the total estimated time savings is estimated to be 85,100 passenger-hours for NJT passengers and 417 passenger-hours for Amtrak passengers. Annual time savings by year for the 40-year projected life of the project were estimated by assuming annual growth in ridership from 2015 levels at 0.5% per year, with the per capita queue-time savings assumed to remain constant over the period (also a conservative simplifying assumption). Better Access to West Side Destinations The walking route to the West Side of Manhattan for NJT and Amtrak passengers via the extended West End Concourse is estimated to be approximately 400-feet shorter, on average, than the route via the existing Penn Station concourses, where a majority of passengers have to walk eastward along the platforms, ascend to the concourse level and street, and then walk back westward across Eighth Avenue to their destinations. The West End Concourse and new street exits within the Farley Building at the corners of Eighth Avenue and 33rd and 31st Streets will offer a more direct path. Based on the ridership projections for Penn Station developed for the Moynihan Station Environmental Assessment and to support the project design, developed in consultation with the railroads, an estimated 18% of NJT passengers will walk to and from locations to the west of Penn Station in the year 2015 (equal to 1,770 passengers in the morning peak hour). An estimated 7.1% of Amtrak passengers will walk to and from the West Side (53 passengers in the year 2015); this figure is lower than the NJT percentage because of the higher proportion of Amtrak passengers using taxis.
5
Not all passengers with West Side origins and destinations will choose to use the West End Concourse. The West End Concourse will be used by an estimated 30% of NJT passengers with West Side destinations, and 33% of Amtrak passengers with West Side destinations. The remaining passengers going to the West Side will continue ascend from the platforms via the stairs and escalators within the existing Penn Station concourses. Since the extended West End Concourse will not be easily usable by either NJT or Amtrak passengers for boarding trains, because of the anticipated lack of train departure information and the fact that all NJT platforms will not be accessible from the West End Concourse, this analysis of benefits only considers time savings for arriving passengers. Assuming an average walk speed of 3.5 ft/sec, the total walk time savings in the year 2015 morning peak hour would be 6,740 passenger-minutes for NJT passengers and 200 passenger-minutes for Amtrak passengers. Based on the 2015 ridership projections for Penn Station, morning peak hour-to-daily expansion factors are assume to be 5.8 for NJT and 17.6 for Amtrak. Daily-to-annual expansion factors are assumed to be 284 for NJT and 277 for Amtrak. Applying these factors yields time savings benefits of 39,100 passenger-minutes for NJT and 3,560 passenger-minutes for Amtrak respectively. These translate into annual time savings of 185,000 passenger-hours for NJT and 16,400 passenger-hours for Amtrak. As with the platform queuing time savings, these benefits are assumed to grow over time proportionally with the growth in railroad ridership, at a projected rate of 0.5% per annum over a 40-year period. LIRR passengers, who already have access to the West End Concourse, will not realize a significant walk time savings as a result of the project. Likewise, passengers with destinations to the east of Penn Station will not realize a significant walk time savings benefit. Better Access to Eighth Avenue Subway A large number of Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) passengers use the West End Concourse as one of the most direct ways to reach the Eighth Avenue Subway from the LIRR’s platforms in Penn Station. The West End Concourse extension will offer NJT and Amtrak passengers the same opportunity for a more direct and less congested walking path to and from the Eighth Avenue Subway station. The method used to estimate walk time savings for these NJT and Amtrak passengers is similar to the method described above for walk time savings to and from West Side destinations. An estimated 10.8% of arriving NJT passengers (3,560 passengers in the year 2015) are projected to use the West End Concourse to reach the Eighth Avenue subway during the morning peak hour. For Amtrak, 3.1% of arriving passengers (70 passengers in the year 2015) will use the new West End Concourse stairways as a more direct route to the Eighth Avenue Subway. On average, these passengers will save approximately 200 feet in walk distance, which, at an average walk speed of 3.5 ft/sec, generates an average time savings of slightly less than two minutes per trip. Peak hour cumulative time savings for NJT passengers in the year 2015 would be 6,770 passenger-minutes in the peak hour, 39,300 passenger-minutes per day, and 186,000 passenger-hours annually – using the same expansion factors that were applied to west side walk trips. For Amtrak passengers, the time savings in the year 2015 would be 133 passenger-minutes in the morning peak hour, 2,340 passenger-minutes daily, and 10,800 passenger-hours annually.
6
These benefits would grow over time through the 40-year period in the same proportion as projected ridership growth and the other time-savings benefits. Reduced Congestion Within Existing Station The fourth category of time savings benefit relates to peak congestion and delay for passengers using the existing Penn Station concourses. The West End Concourse and 33rd Street Connector will divert some NJT and Amtrak passengers from the existing concourses. These will be mostly arriving passengers, since the extended West End Concourse is not projected to be used by a large number of NJT or Amtrak departing passengers. During the weekday peak periods, the extended West End Concourse will serve to relieve congestion at several bottleneck locations within the existing station where peak levels of service are projected to be in the Level of Service (LOS) D range by 2015. These include the 33rd Street Connecting Concourse, 34th Street entrance, Seventh Ave/32nd Street entrance, east end of Hilton Passageway, and within the LIRR Main Gate Area and NJT Seventh Ave Concourse. LOS D is a relatively congested condition that exceeds the normal design standard of LOS C for heavily-used commuter facilities. At LOS D, most pedestrians walk at a speed less than their normal walking speed. Though the West End Concourse will divert only a limited number of passengers from the existing station, primarily those using the Eighth Avenue Subway or with destinations on the west side of Manhattan, the small incremental reductions in congestion and improvements in walking speeds within the existing station will accrue to a large number of pedestrians and result in a significant cumulative time savings benefit for these pedestrians, most of whom are railroad passengers. A rigorous pedestrian circulation and level of service analysis was undertaken for the full Moynihan Station project – including improvements within the Farley Building in addition to the West End Concourse and 33rd Street Connector. This analysis indicated improvements in peak levels of service from the LOS D range to LOS C at the five bottleneck locations listed above. Using data from Fruin5 on average walk speeds at various levels of service, an improvement from LOS D to LOS C would generate an average walk time savings of 0.28 seconds per linear foot of distance travelled. Exhibit 3 summarizes the estimated cumulative walk time savings that would accrue during the peak periods. Since congestion is concentrated in the weekday morning and evening peak periods, a peak hour-to-daily expansion factor of 4.0 was used, consistent with historical observations of peaking and peak congestion at Penn Station. Daily savings are expanded to cumulative annual savings using a factor of 250, based on the simplifying assumption that weekend and holiday conditions are relatively congestion-free. Phase 1 of the Moynihan Station project constructs the West End Concourse and two additional stairways down to Platforms 3 through 6. However, construction of the main Train Hall within the Farley Building, with direct escalator and elevator connections to Platforms 3 through 8, is not included in the Phase 1 work scope – so the impact of the project on pedestrian congestion within the existing station concourses will be more limited in Phase 1 than will be case for the full project when Phase 2 is completed. A stand-alone pedestrian circulation analysis of just the Phase 1 project was not available, so, for the purposes of this analysis, the assumption was made that 10% of the congestion-related walk time savings of the full Moynihan Station project would accrue to the Phase 1 project. This assumption is considered to be conservative, since the Phase 1 West End Concourse project would provide two out of four of the new stair/escalator elements proposed for the west side of Eighth Avenue. (The Phase 2 project also would add a pair of escalators down to Platforms 7 and 8, which are already served by the existing West End Concourse.)
5 J. Fruin, Pedestrian Planning and Design, Elevator World, 1986.
7
Exhibit 3 summarizes the calculations of peak hour, daily and annual walk-time savings associated with reduced peak congestion within the existing portions of Penn Station – as a result of constructing the West End Concourse and 33rd Street Connector.
Exhibit 3: Concourse Congestion Reduction Time Savings
33rd St 34th St 32nd St Hilton 7th Ave TOTALConnecting Entrance Entrance Psgwy Concses
Concse East
No. of pedestrians in peak hour (2015) 16,800 9,600 11,600 6,500 15,600 60,100Distance travelled within bottleneck zone (ft) 500 150 150 50 250Person-feet traveled in congested locs during peak hour (2015) 8,400,000 1,440,000 1,740,000 325,000 3,900,000 15,805,000Walk time savings per foot traveled (secs), LOS D to LOS C 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028Time savings in peak hour due to LOS improvement (p-m) 3,920 672 812 152 1,820 7,376Pro-rated time savings at 10% of above 392 67 81 15 182 738Peak hour to daily factor 4 4 4 4 4Daily time savings (person-minutes) 1,568 269 325 61 728 2,950Daily to annual factor 284 284 284 284 284Annual time savings (Person-hours) 7,422 1,272 1,537 287 3,446 13,965
Commuter share (95%) 13,266Intercity share (5%) 698
Daily time savings of approximately 3,000 person-minutes and cumulative annual savings of 14,000 person-hours are estimated for the year 2015. Approximately 95% of these benefits (13,300 person-hours) are estimated to be realized by commuters, with the remaining 5% (700 person-hours) accruing to Amtrak intercity rail passengers. As with the platform queuing time savings, these benefits are assumed to grow over time proportionally with the growth in railroad ridership, at a projected rate of 0.5% per annum over a 40-year period. Mode Shift The improved passenger access to Platforms 3 through 6 will result in faster platform clearance times on these platforms, which will marginally increase the throughput capacity of these platforms and translate into the ability for the railroads to handle slightly more passengers at the station during the weekday peak periods. The West End Concourse extension will provide for more efficient movement of passengers onto and off of Platforms 3 through 6 in the station, which are used by Amtrak throughout the day and by NJT primarily during the weekday morning and evening peak periods. As previously described, the project will reduce platform queuing times during the peak periods, which can reduce the length of time that trains need to dwell in the station and potentially shorten the intervals between trains arriving at a platform to discharge passengers (even though the time needed to discharge passengers from a loaded train to the platform and up to the concourse level is only one of several factors that influence train dwell times). With the station operating at or above its practical capacity during the peak periods, the augmentation of the station’s throughput capacity by even a small amount will result in the ability of the railroads to carry incrementally more passengers into and out of Manhattan.
8
An analysis was performed of a hypothetical morning peak hour – based on the current railroad operating plan but with passenger volumes about one-third higher than in 2006, reflecting a future condition that could occur in the station in the 2012-2017 timeframe, consistent with the growth plans of the railroads operating at Penn Station. The analysis focused on Platforms 3 through 6 (Tracks 5 through 12) in the station, which will be benefited by the West End Concourse improvements. In the hypothetical operating scenario, NJT morning peak trains on these platform tracks tend to operate one after the other in the eastbound direction, dropping their passengers and proceeding onward to Sunnyside Yard for mid-day storage. These are the station tracks that would offer the greatest opportunity for potentially adding a peak period train. For the hypothetical future operating plan, platform queue times for the NJT trains on these tracks ranged between 3.5 and 6 minutes, for the existing station configuration. When the proposed West End Concourse improvements are included, queue times become shorter, in the range of 3 to 5 minutes. The reduction in overall queue times would be on the order of 0.5 minutes per train. Over the course of a full peak period, the cumulative effect of these reductions in platform queuing would be to create space for one or more additional trains to operate through the station – preserving the same amount of cushion or slack time between the clearance of passengers from a platform and the arrival of a subsequent train at the same platform. The actual platform capacity freed up would be greater, but the ability to run additional trains into and out of Penn Station depends on many factors besides the capacity of the platforms themselves. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that space for one additional commuter train within the two-to-three hour peak period is made available by the passenger circulation benefits of the West End Concourse extension. It is further assumed that latent demand will exist for this additional capacity, and that peak period commuters from New Jersey will shift to NJT trains from other modes (including driving to Manhattan, driving to the Hudson River ferry and taking commuter buses). One additional full-length NJT peak train would carry approximately 1,600 passengers. Assuming one inbound train in the morning and one outbound train in the evening, for 250 weekdays per year, the annual NJT ridership increment attributable to the project would be approximately 800,000 trips. Of these, it is assumed that 80% would be diverted from the bus mode, 15% from drive-to-ferry, and 5% from drive-to-Manhattan. Average commute trip lengths are assumed to be in the 35 to 40 mile range. Over the course of a year, trips diverted from bus to rail would result in a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of approximately 640,000 bus-miles (assuming an average load of 40 passengers per bus). Passengers also would realize a time savings benefit. Assuming an average time savings of approximately 11 minutes per trip (equivalent to an increase in average speed from 30 mph to 35 mph), passengers shifting from bus to rail would save 122,000 passenger-hours of travel time per year. For passengers shifting from the ferry and auto modes, assuming an average time savings of approximately 10 minutes per trip, the associated time savings would be 26,700 passenger-hours of travel time per year. These ferry and auto passengers also would realize an out-of-pocket cost savings associated with not having to park either in Manhattan parking garages or at the Hudson River ferry terminals. Unlike the estimated walk time savings, which are estimated to grow annually in proportion to projected ridership growth, the capacity-related ridership benefits represent a discrete one-time improvement that would remain constant over the estimated lifetime of the improvement (assumed to be 40 years for the purpose of this analysis). Amtrak also would realize an incremental capacity benefit during the commuter peak periods, associated with shorter platform clearance times, modest reductions in average platform dwell times and reduced pedestrian congestion with the portions of station jointly used by Amtrak and the commuter railroads. As was assumed for commuter travel, there will be a latent demand for
9
rail passenger service to and from Penn Station that will not be able to be served at Amtrak’s desired level of service quality, at times when the station is operating at or beyond its practical capacity. In the year 2015 and subsequently, these capacity-constrained conditions are projected to occur during each weekday morning and evening rush hour. With the incremental capacity created by the West End Concourse extension project, which directly serves those platforms that Amtrak uses during the peak period (Platforms 3 through 6), a small number of additional intercity travelers to and from New York can be expected to shift to the train from other modes (predominantly auto and air) because conditions within Penn Station are incrementally better with the West End Concourse extension in place. This analysis assumes a shift of 560 daily passengers to intercity rail, with two-thirds being diverted from air travel and one-third from the automobile mode. These incremental passengers will be carried in both the inbound and outbound directions during both the morning and evening peak periods. They are more likely to be served by Amtrak selectively adding cars to existing trains and/or adjusting its train schedules, rather than by adding new trains to the schedule. The additional equipment needed to carry these passengers is assumed to be available in the 2015 timeframe. Assuming an average trip length of 150 miles and an average automobile occupancy of 1.2, the mode shift from auto to intercity rail would yield a savings of approximately 11.5 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year in the Northeast Corridor. With the average speed of travel increasing to 75 mph for rail as opposed to 60 mph for intercity auto, the average trip by rail would be 30 minutes shorter, resulting in annual passenger time savings of 46,200 person-hours. Relative time savings for the rail mode versus air travel are dependent upon the specific origins and destinations of trips and can vary considerably. A perceived 10-minute savings in journey time for a trip by rail versus the equivalent trip by air is assumed to represent the average for the 375 daily trips that would shift to rail from air travel. This level of reduced journey time would generate an annual benefit of 31,300 passenger-hours in travel time savings for these passengers. As with the commuter benefits in this category, the mode shift benefits represent a discrete estimate of additional capacity, which is assumed to remain constant throughout the analysis lifetime of the project. Life Safety – Emergency Evacuation The combination of the West End Concourse extension and the installation of a platform ventilation system for the portion of the trainshed beneath the Farley Building will make a significant improvement to life safety conditions within the portions of the train station lying west of Eighth Avenue – comprising approximately one-third of the station’s total footprint. The West End Concourse extension will improve the station’s emergency egress capacity and create more balanced conditions throughout the station than now exist. The platform ventilation system will provide a system capable of exhausting smoke from a track-level fire and extending the period of time during which conditions remain tenable for occupancy at the platform level as a fire or other emergency incident progresses. The addition of eight new stairs will improve the emergency egress capacity of Platforms 3 through 6 in Penn Station – making them comparable to the other platforms in the station (1, 2 and 7 through 11) in terms of the quantity and distribution of egress capacity along the platforms. When coupled with the Phase 2 improvements at the Farley Building, all platforms in the station, for the first time in the 100 years since the station was built, will meet the NFPA standard that specifies that no point on a platform should be more than 300 feet from a vertical circulation element. On Platforms 4 through 6, the current distance from the western end of the platform to the nearest stair or escalator ranges from 600 to over 800 feet.
10
There are insufficient data to quantify definitively the probability of occurrence of a fire or other emergency incident at Penn Station and the magnitude of the benefit that the proposed project would generate compared to the existing conditions. In the absence of a rigorous risk assessment, this analysis has identified two hypothetical scenarios where the improved configuration of passenger egress points would reduce the size of the population of passengers vulnerable to an emergency event. One scenario is a track fire or other significant smoke-generating incident at platform level. The second scenario would be a fire or other emergency occurring at the level of the West End Concourse or within the Eighth Avenue Subway station, requiring evacuation to street level of the occupants of the West End Concourse. For the platform level scenario, emergency egress platform clearance times are calculated for the existing condition and for the Moynihan Station Phase 1 condition with the West End Concourse extension constructed. Exhibit 4 compares the time needed to clear selected platforms (3 through 6) of passengers with a full trainload of passengers simultaneously occupying each platform track and indicates the extent to which platform clearance time would be reduced as a result of the West End Concourse improvements. Using the maximum clearance rate for stairs and escalators, according to NFPA 130 criteria, the table calculates the number passengers who would be exposed or vulnerable to adverse conditions at the platform level with the existing configuration, but who would be able to safely exit the platforms under the proposed configuration. The average for the four platforms would be 933 passengers. Assuming a hypothetical casualty rate of 10% for a serious incident at track level, one occurrence of this emergency scenario could generate an estimated 93 casualties.
Exhibit 4: Platform Emergency Event Scenario Platform Platform Platform Platform Average
3 4 5 6 Pl 3Full Trainload platform clearance
-6
Existing clearance rate (per NFPA130) 391 362 412 438Existing clearance time (mins) 6.6 9.0 7.9 7.4W/ WEC clearance time (mins) 4.7 5.9 5.6 5.3Differential (mins of incremental exposure) 1.9 3.1 2.3 2.1Incremental passengers exposed 743 1122 948 920 933
No of events in lifetime of improvement (hypothetical) 1
Casualty rate for vulnerable population (hypothetical) 10%
Casualties (for one incident during project lifetime) 93
Farley would also reduce the time needed to get passengers from any point within the station complex to a point of safe refuge at street level, thanks to more vertical circulation elements, and two additional station entry / exit points. Having nine street exits instead of the existing seven will increase the overall throughput capacity of the station’s street-level entrances from 2,200 persons/minute to 2,600 persons/minute. Exhibit 5 presents an estimate of the incremental egress capacity benefits of the Moynihan Phase 1 project relative to existing conditions. The project will eliminate an existing cul-de-sac condition and increase street egress capacity by a greater amount than ridership is estimated to increase.
11
Exhibit 5: West End Concourse Evacuation Scenario
West End Concourse Evacuation(2015 conditions)Existing WEC Egress capacity to street 204 peds/minPlanned WEC Egress capacity to street 510 peds/min
Peak PM occupancy -- existing 1568 passengersPeak PM occupancy -- planned 1870 passengers
Exit queuing time -- existing 7.69 minutesExit queuing time -- planned 3.67 minutes
Average walk time to street 2 minutes
Clearance time -- existing 9.69 minutesClearance time -- planned 5.67 minutesDifferential 4.02 minutes
Vulnerable population 820 passengersNo. of events in project lifetime (hypothetical) 1Casualty rate (hyothetical) 10%Casualties (hypothetical) 82 passengers
4. BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION As part of the analysis of the analysis a Base Case and three sensitivity scenarios were estimated. Base Case: Present value of benefits estimated at 7% real discount rate. Sensitivity Case A: Present value of the base case benefits estimated at 3% real discount rate. Sensitivity Case B: Present value of benefits estimated at 7% real discount rate, including a 10% probability of life-safety casualties occurring in Penn Station in 2020. Sensitivity Case C: Present value of benefits estimated at 3% real discount rate, including a 10% probability of life-safety casualties occurring in Penn Station in 2020. The results in this section are presented for the Base Case. The Sensitivity Case results are presented in Section 4.
Travel Time Savings There are multiple components of travel-time savings that will be gained as a result of the Moynihan Station project. In general, there are three main categories of beneficiaries in terms of travel time:
1. Existing rail users 2. New rail users (i.e. trips diverted from other modes such as us, auto and air) 3. Remaining highway users and air travelers after the project completion, as a result of
reduced delay on the roads due to a net decrease in highway users as a result of the project.
12
Due to lack of access to adequate data, the benefits of (3) above were not estimated, resulting in a travel time savings estimate that is conservative. The type of benefits accrued by the first two categories of users are: Existing Rail Users
(i) Walk/ Wait Travel Time Savings: This includes travel-time savings for rail passengers in and around Penn Station resulting from reduced queuing and congestion and shorter walk distances. These will be accrued by both local as well as intercity rail passengers.
New Rail Users
(i) Travel time savings due to mode shift: Incremental railroad ridership will result from people shifting from other modes – buses (in case of local passenger), autos (in case of both local and intercity passengers) and air (in case of intercity passengers) – to rail.
Using the above assumptions, time savings benefits were estimated to have a present value of $169 million over the evaluation period.
Reductions in Vehicle Operating Costs and Auto Ownership Costs The Moynihan Station project would not only affect travel times, but would also reduce vehicle operating and ownership costs for non-transit users. Because some drivers will instead choose to use rail, there will be fewer automobiles on the road, and thus, fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Lower VMT results in quantifiable vehicle operating cost savings. It may also encourage some rail transit users to own fewer vehicles. In terms of operating costs, shifting from driving to transit reduces overall VMT, which provides savings in the marginal costs of auto travel (fuel, maintenance and tires). Based on a fuel price of $2.94 per gallon, which represented U.S. fuel prices as of late 2007, the American Automobile Association estimates the variable, out-of-pocket cost for fuel, maintenance and tires at $0.18 per mile in 2009 dollars.6,7 The Moynihan Station analysis values auto (variable) operating cost savings at $0.18 per mile. A reduction in auto VMT due to the Moynihan Station project will also results in less vehicle depreciation (higher vehicle resale value) and reduced vehicle ownership costs for households that shift to transit. Some households will save money associated with vehicle usage, and a small share will save even more by altering their auto purchase decisions (i.e., reducing the number of vehicles owned). Households that have good transit accessibility and own multiple vehicles are strong candidates to reduce their auto ownership level. The Moynihan Station project analysis assumes that 90% of the total reduction in VMT is attributable to reductions in vehicle usage, saving some variable costs associated with vehicle ownership (e.g., depreciation and finance charges). The remaining 10% of the reduction in VMT is attributable to reductions in auto ownership, which is worth more because it also eliminates fixed costs associated with auto ownership (e.g., insurance, licensing, and registration). The reductions in vehicle usage are valued at a rate of $0.17 per vehicle mile (in 2009 dollars) and the reduction in VMT attributable to reductions in auto ownership were valued at $0.27 per
6 "Your Driving Costs" (2008); this value is consistent with others reviewed in current literature. 7 USDOT Benefit-Cost guidelines stipulate an average retail price per gallon of $3.33 in 2007 dollars. However, if this figure is inflated to 2009 dollars and all relevant taxes and deductions are applied, the resulting average retail price would be fairly close to the assumption of $2.94 per gallon.
13
vehicle mile (in 2009 dollars). These assumptions are based upon a review of the state of the practice,8 to estimate the benefits of reduced vehicle ownership.9 Vehicle operating and ownership cost benefits accruing from the Moynihan Station project are estimated to have a present value of $63 million over the evaluation period.
Parking Cost Savings Reductions in the number of auto trips caused by the Moynihan Station may also reduce expenditures on parking, depending on trip destinations. With additional transit use, short-term parking benefits could manifest in terms of reduced demand for parking spaces, and hence, potentially lower parking costs. In the long run, reduced land requirements for parking facilities may free up land for other uses. An estimate of parking cost savings based on number of one-way auto trips eliminated was found to be a $1,000,000 annually in 2009 dollars. This assumes that 75% of the eliminated auto trips use the parking at the ferry station and 25% use parking in Manhattan. This results in a present value parking cost savings of nearly $10 million over the evaluation period.
Accident Cost Savings Reductions in VMT lower the incidence of traffic accidents. The cost savings from reducing the number of accidents include direct savings (e.g., reduced personal medical expenses, lost wages, and lower individual insurance premiums) as well as significant avoided costs to society (e.g., second party medical and litigation fees, emergency response costs, incident congestion costs, and litigation costs). The value of all such benefits – both direct and societal – could also be approximated by the cost of service disruptions to other travelers, emergency response costs to the region, medical costs, litigation costs, vehicle damages, and economic productivity loss due to workers inactivity. The state-of-the-practice in benefit-cost analyses is to estimate highway accident cost savings for each of three accident types (fatal accidents, injury accidents, or property damage only accidents) using the change in highway VMT.10 Some studies perform more disaggregate estimates of the accident cost savings, applying different accident rates to different types of roadways (e.g., interstate, highway, arterial). The Moynihan Station analysis estimates the benefits associated with accident cost savings using the VMT savings. For local travel 80% of all VMT was assumed to be on highways while for interstate travel 95% of all travel was assumed to be on highways. The change in VMT for each of these roadway facility types is then used to calculate the change in the number of fatal accidents, injury accidents, and property damage only accidents (yielding a total of six accident savings figures) using the accident rates shown in Exhibit 3.
8 ECONorthwest and Parsons Brinckerhoff (2002); Minnesota Department of Transportation (2003); Wilbur Smith Associates and Urban Systems (2005); AAA (2006); AASHTO 2003; and Litman (2006). 9 The recommended values were calculated assuming that vehicles drive 15,000 miles per year on average. 10 Parsons Brinckerhoff (2004); National Safety Council (2004); and Booz-Allen Hamilton in association with Hagler Bailly and Parsons Brinckerhoff (1999)
14
Exhibit 6: Accident Rates and Savings
MAIS Level
Severity Fraction of VSL
Economic Value of Accident (2009 $)
Accident Rates (Per Million
VMT)
Corresponding Cal-B/C Accident Rate
Category
MAIS 1 Minor 0.0020 $12,000 1.490 Non-Freeway
(Property Damage)
MAIS 2 Moderate 0.0155 $93,000 1.560 Property Damage Only
MAIS 3 Serious 0.0575 $345,000 0.267 Injury
MAIS 4 Severe 0.1875 $1,125,000 0.267 Injury
MAIS 5 Critical 0.7625 $4,575,000 0.267 Injury
MAIS 6 Fatal 1.0000 $6,000,000 0.013 Fatal The benefits resulting from highway accident reduction are converted to monetary values using the cost of fatal, injury, and non-injury highway accidents cited by the USDOT. In 2009 dollars, fatal accidents are valued at $6,000,000 also known as the value of statistical life (VSL).11 Accordingly, the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) prescribes values of other injuries relative to the VSL as shown in Exhibit 6. The per-VMT rates of all freeway accidents were obtained from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as shown in Exhibit 6.12 Since the USDOT classifies injuries in three categories - Serious, Severe and Critical, and the NHTSA only publishes rates for injury accidents as a whole, the rates for all the three injury categories were assumed to be equal. All non-freeway accidents were valued at the rate of Minor accidents. The rate of non-freeway, minor accidents was obtained from the Caltrans Cal-B/C model. The present value of highway accident savings benefits accruing from the Moynihan Station project over the evaluation period are estimated at $240 million.
Environmental Benefits One important benefit of reduction in VMT is a reduction in air emissions. With fewer vehicles on the road and the need for marginally less air travel, there will be a reduction in such pollutants as Carbon Dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas), Sulfur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, Nitrogen Oxides, and Volatile Organic Compounds.
11 Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in Departmental Analysis, U.S. DOT, March 18, 2009. 12 NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2009, “2008 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment- Highlights”
15
Exhibit 7: Emission Rates and Values
Pollutant Auto Emissions (grams/ mile)
Airplane Emissions
(grams/ passenger mile)
Dollar Value/Ton ($2009)
VOC 0.754 N/A $1,700
NO 0.825 3.024 $4,000
PM 0.035 0.008 $168,000
SO2 0.004 0.097 $16,000
CO2 433.498 314.785 $33*
The value of CO2 damage costs was escalated at 2.4% per year. Average vehicle emissions, for both autos for each of the above-named pollutants, in terms of grams per mile traveled, were obtained from the Caltrans Cal-B/C model, as well as the EPA’s MOBILE6 Vehicle Emissions Modeling Software.13 Similar data for airplane emissions was obtained from the Transportation and Energy Databook (2009) and the Emissions Inventory Guidebook (2006). Exhibit 7 summarizes the emission rates and values used in the analysis. The total weight of avoided emissions was computed using the differential (saved) VMT. The health cost of emissions per ton was obtained from National Center for Statistics and Analysis.14 These were then applied to the emissions rate and an annual health cost of avoided emissions was estimated. Using the above assumptions, the present value of the monetary benefits accrued due to saved emissions, are estimated at $16.9 million over the life time of the project (the PV of CO2 savings was $5.8 million of this amount, using the 7% discount rate).
5. SENSITIVITY SCENARIOS As introduced in Section 3 above, three sensitivity scenarios were estimated based on a combination of alternate real discount rate and a hypothetical major accident scenario that could be avoided as a result of the extension. Discount Rate Sensitivity: As per USDOT guidance, the base case was estimated with a 7% real discount rate and an alternate case of benefits was estimated using 3% real discount rate. Major Accident Sensitivity: The combination of the West End Concourse extension and the installation of a platform ventilation system for the portion of the train-shed beneath the Farley Building will make a significant improvement to life safety conditions within the portions of the train station lying west of Eighth Avenue – comprising approximately one-third of the station’s total footprint. As detailed in Section 3 above, two hypothetical scenarios were estimated, where the improved configuration of passenger egress points would reduce the size of the population of passengers vulnerable to an emergency event. One scenario is a track fire or other significant smoke-generating incident at platform level. The second scenario would be a fire or other emergency occurring at the level of the West End Concourse or within the Eighth Avenue Subway station, requiring evacuation to street level of the occupants of the West End Concourse.
13 http://epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm 14 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, March 2009.
16
In order to monetize the impact of these two accident scenarios, it was assumed that there was a 10% probability of the incidents occurring once during the lifetime of the project. Since discounting the value of the monetary impact of such accidents would involve making assumptions about the time of occurrence, it is assumed that in the scenario that if the accidents occur, their effect would be realized in the year 2020. Based on the above two definitions, the following sensitivity cases were defined: Sensitivity Case A: Present value of benefits estimated at 3% real discount rate. Sensitivity Case B: Present value of benefits estimated at 7% real discount rate, including the potential of two major accidents during the lifetime of the project. Sensitivity Case C: Present value of benefits estimated at 3% real discount rate, including the potential of two major accidents during the lifetime of the project. The benefits corresponding to each of these sensitivity tests are provided in Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 8: Benefits Monetization Base Case and Sensitivity Scenarios
Total Discounted Value of Benefits (2009 $M)
Benefit Category Base Case Sensitivity Case A
Sensitivity Case B
Sensitivity Case C
Local Travel Time Savings Benefit $143.3 $300.6 $143.3 $300.6
Intercity Travel Time Savings Benefit $25.5 $53.5 $25.5 $53.5Vehicle Operating & Ownership Cost Savings Benefits $63.4 $133.0 $63.4 $133.0
Parking Cost Saving Benefits $9.5 $19.9 $9.5 $19.9
Accident Reduction Safety Benefits $239.8 $503.0 $239.8 $503.0
Major Accident Sensitivity N/A N/A $50.0 $75.8
Environmental Benefits $16.9 $37.8 $16.9 $37.8
TOTAL $498.4 $1,047.9 $548.3 $1,123.7
6. ECONOMIC COSTS AND ASSUMPTIONS INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION
In a B/C analysis, the term 'cost' refers to the additional resource costs or expenditures required to implement, perpetuate, and maintain the investments associated with the Moynihan Station project. The B/C analysis uses project costs that have been estimated for the Moynihan Station on an annual basis, expressed in 2009 dollars (the construction costs were provided on a quarterly basis, but aggregated to provide annual numbers). These cost estimates, which are described below, are provided by the Port Authority of New York New Jersey (PANYNJ).15
15 The proposed analysis does not depreciate costs, since it represents a sinking fund for future replacement of an asset. If the analysis were to depreciate costs, a similar process would also have to be done on the benefit side, thereby balancing each other out.
17
Initial project investment costs include engineering and design, demolition, construction, other capital investments, and contingency factors. For this analysis, costs were assumed to begin in the last quarter of 2009 and extend through 2016. The unescalated costs in 2009 dollars are $230.9 million.16 At a discount rate of 7% the PV of the capital costs is $178 million while at a discount rate of 3% the PV is $204 million.
7. APPENDIX - KEY BENEFIT-COST EVALUATION MEASURES There are several common benefit-cost evaluation measures, each tailored to compare benefits and costs from different perspectives. The two that are discussed here were used in the Moynihan Station analysis.
Net Present Value The benefit-cost analysis converts potential gains and losses from the proposed investment into monetary units and compares them on the basis of economic efficiency, i.e., net present value (NPV). For example, NPV = PVB (present value of benefits) - PVC (present value of costs); where: T T
PVB = Σ Bt / (1+ r)t; and PVC = Σ Ct / (1 + r)t
t=0 t=0
and the NPV of a project can be represented as: T
NPV = ∑ (Bt - Ct)/ (1+r) t, t=0
where Bt and Ct are the benefits and costs, respectively, of a project in year t; r is the real discount rate; and T is the time horizon (evaluation period). In essence, NPV gives the magnitude of the project’s economic feasibility in terms of net benefits (benefits minus costs) discounted to present values using the real discount rate assumption. Under this criterion, a scenario with an NPV greater than zero may be considered “economically feasible”. The NPV provides some perspective on the overall dollar magnitude of benefits not reflected by the other two measures.
Benefit/Cost Ratio The evaluation also estimates the benefit-cost ratio; where the present value of incremental benefits divided by the present value of incremental costs yields the benefit-cost ratio (B/C Ratio), i.e., B/C Ratio = PVB / PVC. In essence, the B/C Ratio expresses the relation of discounted benefits to discounted costs as a measure of the extent by which a project’s benefits either exceed or fall short of their associated costs. For example, a B/C ratio of 1.5 indicates that the project generates $1.5 of benefits per $1 of cost. As such, a ratio greater than 1 is necessary for the project to be economically worthwhile (feasible). The B/C Ratio can be useful when the objective is to prioritize or rank projects or portfolios of projects with the intent to decide how to best allocate an established capital budget, assuming equivalent classification of benefits and costs.
18
16 Reflects a 4.0% cost escalation assumption included in the project cost estimate.
APPENDIX E
Suffolk
Orange
Ocean
Dutchess
Morris
Sussex
Warren
Monmouth
Hunterdon
Westchester
Nassau
Bergen
Mercer
Somerset
Putnam
Passaic
Middlesex
Essex
Rockland
UnionQueens
Kings
BronxHudson
Richmond
NY
BOX 2: THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY 26-COUNTY METROPOLITAN REGION AT A GLANCE IN 2008
AreaPopulationNon-farm JobsRetail SalesWages and Salaries
8,380 Square Miles20.19.1
$283.1$620.7
MillionMillionBillionBillion
(All monetary figures are in 2008 dollars)
PROFILE OF THE 26-COUNTY NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN REGION
APPENDIX F
Port Authority Minority Participation Summary2002 - 2007
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
Port Authority
Prime Construction $364,386,006 $371,731,863 $540,234,361 $334,641,988 $487,943,156 $814,098,327Goods and Services $543,992,777 $721,311,809 $841,175,048 $253,591,833 471,787,262 366,063,579Architectural & Engrg. $181,246,000 $143,431,350 $144,217,990 $136,130,150 198,797,000 166,978,000
Port Authority Total $1,089,624,783 $1,236,475,022 $1,525,627,399 $724,363,971 $1,158,527,418 $1,347,139,906
M/WBE
Prime Construction $31,217,138 $24,262,840 $44,086,074 $31,331,919 $32,413,020 $80,250,361
Goods and Services $22,510,667 $12,731,720 $4,044,410 $20,937,399 14,901,182 28,965,681
Architectural & Engrg. $32,778,000 $28,360,270 $28,477,940 $30,609,790 25,229,850 27,619,600
SBE
Prime Construction $5,236,000 $3,500,000 $1,345,900 $1,344,000 1,167,320 20,661,474
Goods and Services $9,477,543 $4,767,754 $3,198,921 $8,999,286 6,776,451 33,260,245
Architectural & Engrg. $1,798,000 $1,338,330 $744,080 $63,010 3,651,920 624,900
Subcontracting $61,883,634 $58,850,574 $64,663,711 $67,191,885 108,164,982 122,178,566
Yr.-End PA Minority Total $164,900,982 $133,811,488 $146,561,036 $160,477,289 $192,304,725 $313,560,827
APPENDIX G
www.ny.gov - GOVERNOR PATERSON, SENATOR SCHUMER AND ... GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THE FUTURE OF MOYNIHAN STATION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 13, 2009
GOVERNOR PATERSON, SENATOR SCHUMER AND AMTRAK PRESIDENT JOE BOARDMAN ANNOUNCE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THE FUTURE OF MOYNIHAN
STATION
Path Cleared for Final Planning and Design of Long-Awaited New Train Station
Governor David A. Paterson, Senator Charles Schumer and Amtrak President Joe Boardman today announced that months of intensive negotiations have resulted in a general agreement and mutual understanding on the basic terms and conditions that will lead to the redevelopment of New York City’s historic Farley Post Office Building into a new intercity passenger train station and center for most of Amtrak’s New York City service. This agreement, the terms of which will be finalized as soon as possible and memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding, will allow for final planning, design and financing efforts to proceed on the long hoped for dream of Moynihan Station. “I am extremely pleased to announce that an understanding has been reached between New York State and Amtrak on the future of Moynihan Station. New York City is the lynchpin of Amtrak’s service network in the Northeastern United States, and I welcome this long-term partnership with Amtrak to preserve and enhance the role of rail in New York State and across the region. This project has been a top priority of my Administration, and today is an important step toward delivering on its promise.” Senator Charles E. Schumer said: “This is a critical step forward in the effort to get the Moynihan Station back on track and keep it that way until it’s done. Amtrak has truly stepped up the plate here to make a commitment to Senator Moynihan’s vision to transform the Farley Post office in to a world class gateway to New York City.” Amtrak CEO and President Joe Boardman said: “This mutual understanding developed between the parties will the help lead to the development of a world-class passenger station for Amtrak service in New York City and commits all of us to the long-range task of expanding rail and terminal capacity so that Amtrak and the regional commuter operators can collectively meet the growing needs for passenger train service in New York and throughout the Northeast. The building of Moynihan Station will provide the grand entrance that this great city deserves.” More than fifteen years ago, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan envisioned transforming the historic McKim, Mead & White designed Farley Post Office Building into a new intercity passenger rail station that would be a grand gateway to New York City and replace the original Penn Station, which was razed in 1963. The project announced today will provide for the relocation of Amtrak services to a new train hall to be constructed in the Farley Building, and also creates a partnership between New York State and Amtrak to plan for the long-term future of the station complex and the New York City intercity and regional rail network.
file:///X|/Economics/Federal%20Stimulus/TIGER...%20THE%20FUTURE%20OF%20MOYNIHAN%20STATION.htm (1 of 2) [9/15/2009 3:12:47 PM]
www.ny.gov - GOVERNOR PATERSON, SENATOR SCHUMER AND ... GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THE FUTURE OF MOYNIHAN STATION
Pennsylvania Station is the busiest rail station in North America, with roughly 25% of all Amtrak passengers passing through Penn Station at some point on their journey. Rail ridership is projected to rise considerably in the coming years and station, terminal and track capacity must be expanded to meet these needs. The terms of the agreement will be finalized in the coming weeks and memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding.
file:///X|/Economics/Federal%20Stimulus/TIGER...%20THE%20FUTURE%20OF%20MOYNIHAN%20STATION.htm (2 of 2) [9/15/2009 3:12:47 PM]
![005014917 00210 · Bridget Moynihan the Widow Effects £165 MOYNIHAN John 166] 12 December Administration of the Estate of John Moynihan late of Killelton Camp County Kerry Labourer](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5e133cdc5a81431d8824aae4/005014917-bridget-moynihan-the-widow-effects-165-moynihan-john-166-12-december.jpg)
