FINAL DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
APRIL 2015
Highway / Intersection Project
P.I.N. 4531.07 Route 531 Terminus Improvement Monroe County Towns of Ogden and Sweden
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor JOAN MCDONALD, Commissioner
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER (Title / PIN / Location) PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET LIST OF PREPARERS
CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 -3 1.2. Purpose and Need ...... 1 -3 1.3. What Alternatives Are Being Considered? ...... 1 -4 1.4. How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment? ...... 1 -6 1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedules? ...... 1 -8 1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred? ...... 1 -9 1.7. What are the Opportunities for Public Involvment……………………………………………………..1 - 10
CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS 2.1. Project History ...... 2 -1 2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use ...... 2 -2 2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area...... 2-2 2.2.2. Transportation Corridor...... 2-2 2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations ...... 2 -3 2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance...... 2-3 2.3.2. Multimodal...... 2-13 2.3.3. Infrastructure...... 2-14 2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities...... 2-18 2.3.5. Miscellaneous...... 2 -19
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES 3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study ...... 3 -1 3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives ...... 3 -3 3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives...... 3-3 3.2.2 Preferred Alternative...... 3-15 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s)...... 3-15 3.3. Engineering Considerations...... 3 -21 3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance...... 3-21 3.3.2. Multimodal...... 3-40 3.3.3. Infrastructure...... 3-47 3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements...... 3-55 3.3.5. Miscellaneous...... 3-56
CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1. Introduction ...... 4 -1 4.2. Social ...... 4 -3 4.3 Economic ...... 4 -15 4.4 Environmental...... 4 -16 4.5 Construction Effects………………..…………………………………………………………………… 4-51
iii
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Appendices
A Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections – Feasible Alternatives 2, 3 & 5 Environmental Information B • SHPO Correspondence / Finding Document • Correspondence Traffic Information • Accident Analysis, Safety Screen` C • Design Speed Review • Pedestrian Generator Checklist Public Involvement (PI) Plan and Input from Stakeholders D • Public Hearing Sign-in sheet • Public Hearing Comment Summary E Non-Standard Features Justification F Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan & Right of Way G Matrix Evaluation Technical Appendices Available upon request Technical Memorandum – APRIL 2010 Technical Memorandum for PIN 4531.05 A1 Route 531 Extension Study (Washington Street to Redman Road) Towns of Ogden & Sweden, Monroe County B1 Pavement Evaluation & Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) Drainage – Route 531 Terminus improvement Project, Technical Memorandum Floodplain Evaluation, C1 July 9, 2013 D1 Route 531 Farmland documentation – Prime & Unique, Agricultural District Separate Engineering Reports Available upon request 1. Culvert Inspection Report Pending 2. Air Quality Analysis Report – March 2013 3. Noise Analysis Report – May 2013 4. Wetland Assessment & Delineation Report – November 2013 5. Hazardous Waste Assessment – April 2012 6. Public Hearing Transcript – February 25, 2015
iv
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report serves as the project Design Approval Document (DAD), providing documentation for the Route 531 Terminus Improvement project, including defining the needs and objectives for the project study area and how these will be met as well as an assessment of the environmental effects. This report will assess existing conditions, identify the overall project objectives, analyze alternative solutions, and discuss the social, economic and environmental effects on the community resulting from the implementation of the alternatives under consideration.
This Design Approval Document was prepared in accordance with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Project Development Manual, 17 NYCRR Part 15, and 23 CFR 771, the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Official’s (AASHTO) “A Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways, 2004”, and “A Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012”.
There were three (3) feasible alternatives under consideration and each has been reviewed for their social, economic and environmental effects. NYSDOT’s Environmental Action Plan describes the process to be used in developing Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) federal aid Transportation projects. Following the Environmental Action Plan ensures compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); this project will be advanced as a Class III Action (Environmental Assessment) under NEPA. This project has also been classified as a Non- Type II (Environmental Assessment) project under the SEQRA guidelines, and NYSDOT satisfies SEQRA requirements with the preparation of this report. The Federal Highway Administration is the lead agency for the NEPA process and the NYSDOT is the lead agency under SEQRA. Refer to Chapter IV for further discussions regarding classification and the environmental procedure. The preferred alternative that best meets the project objectives is Alternative 2, the At-Grade Conventional Signalized Intersection. This decision is based on an evaluation of comments received on the ‘Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment (DR/EA)’ and on comments received after the February 5, 2015 Public Hearing.
Project Location and Evolution:
The Route 531 Terminus is located in the western portion of the Town of Ogden with the Route 31 terminus work extending into the Town of Sweden in Monroe County. Route 31 serves as a major east west corridor for the western side of Monroe County. The project study area is east of Route 260, Sweden-Walker Road and extends east past Route 36; it begins 700 ft west of Salmon Creek Road on Route 31 and proceeds easterly, for approximately 2 miles, along Route 31 and then Route 531, to approximately 2,000 feet east of the current Route 531 Terminus with Route 36. The Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) Resolution #94-16 adopted December 15, 1994 identified the extension of the NYS Route 531 to the west as a potential Major Investment Study (MIS). The Final Summary Report was sponsored and directed by the Genesee Transportation Council with the assistance of the NYSDOT and the Route 531/Brockport – Rochester Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) was completed in February 2000. This project was a direct result of the Route 531 Extension Study Scoping Phase Technical Memorandum completed in April 2010. The purpose of the Route 531 Extension Study (PIN 4531.05) was to consider capacity improvements along the Route 31 corridor from Washington Street (Route 36) to Brockport (6.5 miles) including an upgrade to existing Route 31 or an extension of Route 531 to the west of Brockport. During the scoping phase of that project the results of the traffic and accident analysis indicated that in the future the existing Route 31 traffic would continue to operate at or near capacity during the commuter peak hours. The conclusion of the scoping phase determined that an extension of Route 531 was not a viable alternative and that location-specific improvements developed as a result of the scoping phase should be
1-1 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
monitored and progressed on an as needed basis. Based upon the data from the scoping report, there are continued safety, traffic, pavement and system needs along Route 31 and in the immediate Terminus area. Most importantly, these included safety and capacity improvements to the Route 531 Terminus, which is a persistent accident and capacity problem area, and along Route 31 immediately to the west to include implementation of a preferred alignment and speed transitions. Purpose of the Project: The purpose of this project is to address the needs of the 18,000 to 21,000 vehicles per day that travel through the existing Terminus along Route 531, Route 36 and Route 31 and consider the needs of those who live in the project study area. The alternatives have been developed to address mobility and safety needs (Route 531/Route 36/Route 31 bottleneck) and significantly reduce accidents at the existing Terminus. The feasible alternatives consider two (2) At-grade intersection treatments along with a grade separated Full Diamond interchange. All of the feasible alternatives include the Route 31 Improvements immediately west of the Terminus to transition the Route 531 alignment to existing Route 31, provide traffic calming features for speed transition and Route 31 intersection improvements for safety. Engineering, environmental and community effects and issues have been identified and documented herein and are used with the alternative evaluations.
Six (6) Alternatives Considered: The project study efforts considered the following alternatives: Alternative 1 – Null or “No-Build/Maintenance” alternative Alternative 2 – Route 531/Route 36 At-grade conventional signalized intersection with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31; Alternative 3 – Route 531/Route 36 At-grade signalized superstreet median crossover with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31; Alternative 4 – Route 531/Route 36 Half diamond interchange with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31; Alternative 5 – Route 531/Route 36 Full diamond interchange with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31; Alternative 6 – Route 531/Route 36 Roundabout with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31.
Three (3) Feasible Alternatives: The following are considered Feasible Alternatives based on the study documentation herein and as presented in section 3.2.1:
Alternative 2 – Route 531/Route 36 At-grade conventional signalized intersection with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31
Alternative 3 – Route 531/Route 36 At-grade signalized superstreet median crossover with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31
Alternative 5 – Route 531/Route 36 Full diamond interchange with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31
1-2 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
1.1. Introduction
This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 17 NYCRR Part 15, and 23 CFR 771.
1.2. Purpose and Need
1.2.1. Where is the Project Located?
Exhibit 1.2.1 Project Location Map (1) Route number/name: Route 531 – Spencerport Expressway; Route 31 – Brockport Spencerport Road; Route 36 – Washington Street (2) SH number and official highway description – SH 92-2 (Route 531), SH 5539 (Route 31 – Route 36 to Route 260), SH 1466 (Route 36, Washington Street south of Route 31), CR 221 (Washington Street north of Route 31) (3) CIN CA00307 – Route 31 Culvert over Salmon Creek (4) Municipality – Towns of Ogden and Sweden (5) County – Monroe County (6) Length – 11,500 feet (7) From RM 31-4301-1076 to RM 531-4301-2002 (8) Termini: West – 700 ft west of Salmon Creek Road along Route 31 East – 1500 ft to 2000 ft east of the western terminus of Route 531.
1-3 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed?
This project is needed to address highway safety and congestion for the Route 531 terminus at Route 36/Route 31 and highway safety along Route 31 from the Route 531 terminus to Salmon Creek Road.
1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project? The objectives of this project are to:
(1) Improve Safety features of the existing facility to address current and future safety needs within the project limits.
• Improve the overall safety along the corridor by reducing the potential for accident occurrences. • Reduce the number and severity of accidents along the corridor.
(2) Improve overall traffic conditions using cost effective methods to reduce delay and to provide an acceptable level of service at the Route 531/Route 31 intersection (Route 531 Terminus), for a minimum design period of 20 years.
(3) Provide traffic calming techniques to encourage vehicles to transition from the 65 mph expressway speed limit to 55 mph along Route 31.
(4) Maintain Bike Route 5 within the Project Limits.
(5) Minimize the project’s impacts on environmental and man-made resources.
1.3. What Alternatives Are Being Considered?
The following alternatives, representing possible engineering solutions, are presented in this report:
• Alternative 1 – ‘Null’ or No-Build/Maintenance alternative; • Alternative 2 – Route 531/Route 36 At-grade conventional signalized intersection with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31; • Alternative 3 - Route 531/Route 36 At-grade signalized superstreet median crossover with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31; • Alternative 4 – Route 531/Route 36 Half Diamond interchange with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31; • Alternative 5 – Route 531/Route 36 Full Diamond interchange with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31; • Alternative 6 – Route 531/Route 36 Roundabout with traffic calming and safety improvements to Route 31.
Alternative 1 – No Build/Maintenance Alternative – Under this alternative, the existing infrastructure would be retained as is and routine maintenance efforts would be performed by the NYSDOT forces to extend the service life of the existing terminus configuration and pavement. Routine maintenance work would be of temporary nature and would not address the long term safety and capacity deficiencies identified, therefore the terminus’ current state of safety and capacity issues would continue and/or become worse. This alternative is not considered feasible but will be used to compare against other feasible alternatives.
1-4 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Improvements common to all Build Alternatives:
Traffic improvements for all alternatives include enhancements to Route 31 to improve overall safety by providing traffic calming features as you continue westerly towards Brockport and the westbound running speed transition from expressway to arterial. Traffic calming features will include: major downstream realignments at Hubbell and Gallup Roads; a gradual section width narrowing with median width reduction, the introduction of a raised median and advanced signage and striping.
As mentioned above, Hubbell and Gallup Road intersections would be realigned to provide downstream traffic calming features that will safely transition from an “Expressway” speed to slower “Rural Arterial” speed. In addition better access to and from Route 31 utilizing intersection channelization, center, left and acceleration lanes along with storage and refuge areas will be provided.
At-grade Intersection Alternatives – The project studied two (2) at-grade signalized intersection treatments in depth for the Route 531 terminus. In addition a two-lane roundabout (Alternative 6) was considered but dropped due to inadequate capacity capabilities.
Alternative 2 – At-grade intersection – The existing Route 531 terminus with Route 36 would be modified to provide a conventional four-way signalized intersection utilizing two way operation for all four approaches and eliminate the indirect Route 531 westbound movement to Route 31. Channelization improvements are integrated in the design for safety purposes. This alternative would eliminate the current Route 31 east-west traffic pattern requiring this maneuver to pass through the proposed signalized intersection, while converting Route 31 2,000 feet west of Route 36 to a Cul-de-sac. This alternative meets the projects needs and objectives and is considered feasible.
Alternative 3 – Modified Superstreet – The existing Route 531 terminus with Route 36 would be modified to provide a signalized superstreet median crossover intersection to improve operational safety and eliminate the indirect Route 531 westbound movement to Route 31. The superstreet concept would allow the Route 531 (major traffic flow) direct east – west access while providing the Route 36 (minor traffic flow) a more circuitous route. Alternative 3 would also eliminate the current Route 31 east-west traffic pattern requiring this maneuver to pass through the proposed signalized superstreet intersection, while proposing a Cul-de-Sac on Route 31 2,000 feet west of Route 36. This alternative meets the projects needs and objectives and is considered feasible.
Alternative 6 - Roundabout – The existing Route 531 terminus with Route 36 would be replaced with a two-lane roundabout to improve operational safety and eliminate the indirect westbound movement to Route 31. The roundabout would allow the Route 531 major traffic direct east – west access to circulate through the roundabout while providing the Route 36 traffic with through and turning movements to Route 531. This alternative would also eliminate the current Route 31 east-west traffic pattern allowing this maneuver to pass through the proposed roundabout, while proposing a Cul-de-Sac on Route 31 2,000 feet west of Route 36. However, this alternative is not considered feasible due to the high volume of traffic on Route 531, which a roundabout of this size is not capable of processing the traffic volumes.
Grade separated Intersection Alternative - The project studied two (2) grade separated intersection alternatives in depth for the Route 531 terminus. Alternative 4 would provide a Half Diamond Interchange with safety/traffic calming improvements along Route 31, while Alternative 5 would provide a Full Diamond Interchange with safety/traffic calming improvements along Route 31.
Alternative 4 – Half Diamond Interchange –The existing Route 531 terminus with Route 36 would be replaced with a Half Diamond Interchange (on the east side of Route 36) along with a pair of connector ramps to and from Route 31 (on the west side of Route 36). This alternative would also grade separate traffic and eliminate the indirect Route 531 westbound movement to Route 31. The proposed interchange and scope of work for Alternative 4 would modify the Route 31 east-west traffic pattern by realigning existing Route 31, west of Route 36, as a pair of connector ramps to and from the extended Route 531, immediately west of Route 36. As shown in Exhibit 3.1-1 the former Route 31 would be terminated as a
1-5 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
cul-de-sac 2,000 feet west of Route 36. This alternative would however, provide geometrically inadequate design features (non-standard) using appropriate design speeds for Route 531 and Route 36.
While this alternative meets the Projects needs and objectives it is substantially more expensive, has a larger footprint of impacts and several non-standard features than the similar Alternative 5 – Full Diamond Interchange below, and therefore is not considered feasible.
Alternative 5 – Full Diamond Interchange – The existing Route 531 terminus with Route 36 would be replaced with a Full Diamond Interchange grade separating traffic and eliminating the indirect Route 531 westbound movement to Route 31. The new grade separated interchange would allow for free flow east- west movement through the Route 531/Route 31 transition and free flow north-south movement along Route 36 as an overpass. This alternative would also eliminate the current Route 31 east-west traffic pattern by proposing a Route 31 Cul-de-Sac 2,000 feet west of Route 36 and require this maneuver to pass through the proposed grade separated interchange. This alternative meets the projects needs and objectives and is considered feasible.
For a more in-depth discussion of the feasible alternatives, design criteria and nonstandard features see Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 of this report.
1.4 How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment? Exhibit 1.4 – A Environmental Summary NEPA Classification Class III BY Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) SEQR Type: Non-Type II (EA) BY New York State Dept. of Transportation (NYSDOT)
Exhibit 1.4 – B Comparison of Feasible Alternatives Alternatives Null 2 3 5 Category No Build Conventional Signalized Signalized Grade separated Full Maintenance Intersection Superstreet Diamond Interchange Intersection Wetland impacts None 0.68 acres 0.70 acres 0.75 acres
100 year floodplain None None None Negligible impact
Impact to Prime Farmland Soils None 2.13 acres 2.18 acres 2.05 acres (NRCS) Impact to Agricultural None 1.95 acres 1.95 acres 1.89 acres District No. 5 Forested Upland None 2.10 acres 2.81 acres 7.08 acres Impacts Sites A & C Site A Site A Site A 1 Noise impacts Noise Noise impact above FHWA Noise impact above Noise impact above above FHWA NAC FHWA NAC FHWA NAC NAC 9.54 acres (Acquisition) 9.63 acres (Acquisition) 10.14 acres (Acquisition) 4.06 acres (ROW) 4.22 acres (ROW) 4.49 acres (ROW) 14 parcels 14 parcels 15 parcels Property impacts None 0 Businesses 0 Businesses 0 Businesses 6 Relocations 6 Relocations 6 Relocations 1 Agricultural District 1 Agricultural District 1 Agricultural District
1-6 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Operation at ETC + 20 (Route 531 WB - 7.2 min delay 0.5 min delay 0.5 min delay No delay PM) Approximate Accident None 26.9% 24.9% 45.7% Reduction Factor • Rte 531 Median change • Route 36 overpass • Rte 531 Median change • 531 Channelized • Vertical change Traffic Calming Existing Traffic • 531 Superstreet pattern Intersection • Lane drop Benefits Signal • Route 31 sweeping • Route 31 sweeping • Route 31 sweeping horizontal alignment horizontal alignment horizontal alignment Construction Cost None $ 18.37 M $ 18.28 M $ 29.69 M Notes: 1. Refer to Section 4.4.17 for the Receiver Site locations; the differences in noise levels between the three (3) build alternatives are essentially negligible and primarily imperceptible to the human ear.
Anticipated and Required Permits/Certifications/Coordination:
NYSDEC: • NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit • Section 401 Individual Water Quality Certification of the Clean Water Act (FWPCA)
Federal Executive Orders • 11990 – Protection of Wetlands • 13112 – Invasive Species • 11988 – Floodplain Management • 13166 – Improved Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency
USACE • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 Letter of Permission
Coordination • Coordination with NYSDEC pursuant to the “NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding Regarding ECL Article 15 & 24” • Coordination with Federal Highway Administration • Coordination with New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) • Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service • Coordination with the New York Natural Heritage Program • New York Agricultural & Markets • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) • Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA)
Certifications • NYSDOL: Asbestos Variances
Others • Monroe County Department of Transportation • Monroe County Department of Health • Monroe County Parks • Historic or Archaeological Impacts on Federal 106 • Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16USC703 - 712
1-7 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedules?
The estimated costs of the Route 531/Route 36 feasible alternatives including the Route 31 safety improvements range from $18.28M to $29.69M. The current approved funding for the project is $5.785M from a federal earmark and $10.137M in federal Highway Safety Improvement Program funding for construction, $2.039M for ROW acquisition and $0.708M for construction inspection, for a total of $18.669M.
The $8.326M in federal funds are the remaining amounts from a TEA 21-2004 appropriation, described as “Route 531/Brockport-Rochester Corridor in Monroe County, New York” and from SAFETEA-LU Section 1702 described as “Route 531 Expansion Spencerport-Brockport, four lane Highway is a project to extend Route 531”. $7.6M in federal funds is from a statewide allocation of Highway Safety Improvement Program funds, which was awarded to provide safety improvements and traffic calming features at the rural intersections to reduce speeds and provide a transition from the high-speed expressway to the rural, two-lane roadway section.
Design Approval is scheduled for the Spring of 2015 with Construction scheduled to last eighteen (18) months beginning in the Summer of 2016.
Exhibit 1.5 – 1 Project Schedule Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Scoping Approval May 2010 Design Approval Spring 2015 ROW Acquisition Start Late 2014 through 2016 Construction Start Fall 2016 Substantial Construction Fall 2017 Complete
1-8 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 1.5 – 2 Summary of Alternative Project Costs – Million Dollars (Calculated Year) Conventional Signalized Full Diamond Signalized Superstreet Interchange Activities Intersection Crossover Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5
Bridge &/or large 0.220 0.220 3.416 Construction culvert Costs Highway 11.329 11.303 17.080
Wetland Mitigation 0.160 0.160 0.160
SPDES Mitigation 0.715 0.660 0.550
Subtotal (2014 Dollars) 12.424 12.343 21.206
Field Change Payment1 0.790 0.800 1.170
Subtotal (2014 Dollars) 13.214 13.143 22.376
Mobilization (4%) 0.529 0.526 0.895
Subtotal (2014 Dollars) 13.743 13.669 23.271
Contingencies2 (10% @ 1.374 1.367 2.327 Design Approval)
Subtotal (2014 Dollars) 15.117 15.036 25.598
Construction Inspection 1.209 1.203 2.048 (8%)
ROW Costs 2.039 2.039 2.039 (2012 Dollars)
Total Costs 18.365 18.278 29.685 Notes: 1. According to HDM Chapter 21 Section 21.3.9.4, EB 03-029 & EB 06-057. 2. NYSDOT recommends standard contingencies: 25% Scoping stage, 15% Design Approval stage, 5% Advanced Detail Plans stage. The contingency amount includes anticipated inflation costs.
1.6. Which Alternative is Selected?
The Department’s selected alternative is Alternative 2, the At-Grade Conventional Signalized Intersection. This decision is based on an evaluation of comments received on the ‘Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment (DR/EA)’ and on comments received as a result of the February 5, 2015 Public Hearing.
1-9 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
1.7. What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement?
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for making the decision on the preferred alternative for the project. When making the decision the NYSDOT has and will consider all comments received from the community, impacted residents and various involved agencies. Two (2) Public Informational meetings were held, a workshop session and a Public Hearing was held as noted below (See Appendix D for meeting minutes).
The purpose of this Design Approval Document is to document findings of the design studies that includes traffic and accident analysis, development of design alternatives, the Right of Way acquisition process and social, economic and environmental studies.
Based upon the data presented in this Design Approval Document, there is continued safety, traffic, pavement and system needs at the Route 531 Terminus and the adjacent segments of Route 31 and Route 36 within this corridor. These improvements being considered are part of the Terminus Improvement project and are not anticipated to have a significant impact on the environment.
There are no known major actions proposed by other governmental agencies within the same area as the proposed project.
Exhibit 1.7 Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Technical Memorandum – Extension Study April 2010 Workshop Session Meeting May 2011 Public Informational Meetings September 2010 / June 2012 Public Hearing February 5, 2015 Current Project Letting date August 2016
Refer to Appendix D for Public Involvement (PI) Plan and Input from Stakeholders.
There are a variety of ways you can provide your thoughts.
• A Public Hearing was held February 5, 2015 where Department representatives discussed/presented the Preferred Alternative and the Public gave comments to a stenographer or provided written comments. According to the 2010 census data, 2.5% of the population in this rural area has limited English proficiency, this level does not meet the threshold therefore no Public Information materials required translation. For Limited English Proficiency, the limit is greater than 5% of individuals in a census tract.
• You can contact:
Wes Alden, Project Manager Please include the six digit Project Identification Number (PIN) 4531.07 Questions or comments email: [email protected] Telephone: (585) 272-3306
Mailing Address: New York State Department of Transportation Region 4 Design 1530 Jefferson Road Rochester, New York 14623 1-10 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report /Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
• You can visit the Project’s website: https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/regional- offices/region4/projects/route531terminus
The deadline for submitting comments on this report circulation was February 27, 2015. Refer to Appendix D for a Summary of Public Comments.
The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of the existing conditions, the proposed alternatives, the impacts of the alternatives, copies of technical reports and plans and other supporting information.
1-11 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ______
This chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project site, including the existing conditions, deficiencies, and needs for this part of the Route 531 / Route 31 corridor.
2.1. Project History
In February 2000, a Major Investment Study (MIS) was completed for the transportation corridor generally known as Route 531 and Route 31 within the Towns of Ogden and Sweden. The MIS was a planning level study of the Spencerport to Brockport corridor that focused on how improvements to the transportation system could improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve mobility while promoting sustainable growth and economic prosperity to western Monroe county and points further west into Orleans County.
The need for the Extension Study was identified in the MIS and was programmed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Region 4 and included in the Transportation Improvement Plan. The Initial Project Proposal (IPP) was approved by the Regional Director on March 4, 2004. The project was approved on the TIP on May 5, 2005 and the STIP on December 5, 2005.
The purpose of the Route 531 Extension study was to develop improvements to the 6.5 mile long corridor that could provide for the existing and projected traffic demand and address highway safety. During the scoping phase of the project however, the results of traffic studies and accident analysis indicated that future Route 31 traffic (Design Year 2034) would operate near or at capacity during the commuter peak. As such, most of the traffic problems, other than those at the current Route 531 terminus with Route 36, will not occur until 20 years or more in the future.
The original Route 531 Extension Study was revised to a Technical Memorandum, completed April 2010 and concluded that major capacity improvements in the Route 531/Route 31 corridor were not warranted by existing and forecasted traffic volumes. Based upon the data from the Technical Memorandum there was continued safety, traffic and system needs along the state highways within the corridor. The recommended improvements to consider would be location-specific, independent and were not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts.
This project is a direct result of the Route 531 Extension Study and the need to address capacity and safety problems at the present Route 531 Terminus. It was highly recommended to address the needs at the existing terminus and along Route 31 from Route 36 to Salmon Creek Road to address the alignment and speed transition. This project has been placed on the Department’s Capital Program under PIN 4531.07 and the TIP (H03-38) to study the Route 531 Terminus Improvement Project Plan.
This project is being administered by NYSDOT, Region 4.
2-1 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use
2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area
2.2.1.1. Local Comprehensive Plans (Master Plan)
The Regional Planning Group has reviewed the local master plan prepared for the town of Ogden and Sweden. Both Towns have recently reviewed their respective Master Plans with no new changes being reported; and this project is consistent with both local master plans.
2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans
Along the north side of Route 31, immediately east of Route 36, there is a residential subdivision referred to as Ellington Place Subdivision, with 2 acre or larger lots planned. The plans are complete and the subdivision under construction with three (3) lots currently improved, eventually providing nine (9) lots that will have access off Route 31 using a new Black Burn Knoll entrance.
In addition, there are three (3) Kadrie Lane building lots, off Route 36 just south of the Route 531 Terminus that has one (1) lot developed.
There are no additional approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations.
2.2.2. Transportation Corridor
2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment
Route 531 and Route 31 serve as a vital connection between the east-west traffic corridors linking the City of Rochester to the west side of Monroe County and further into Orleans County. Daily commuters use this highway segment to travel to and from work along with college students and faculty traveling to SUNY College at Brockport. Further, Brockport’s retail market has increased to over 1M square feet, mostly along Route 31, which has made this a desirable regional shopping area. This section of Route 531/Route 31 currently doesn’t have any major system deficiencies; however the Route 531 Terminus regularly experiences peak hour traffic delays (westbound - PM), which cause a ½ mile back-up or more, and as a result, the Route 531/Route 36 intersection experiences high accident rates.
2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes
Route 104 and the Lake Ontario State Parkway to the north and Colby Street to the south, could serve as alternate east-west routes; however the increased traffic volumes on these State and County highways would impact regional mobility. Route 104 is a two-lane rural arterial state highway 2 ½ miles north of Route 31 while the Lake Ontario State Parkway is a divided four-lane parkway approximately 11 miles north. Two east-west county roads are present (Colby Street and Reed Road); however the nearest east- west state route is Route 104 to the north, as mentioned above. It also should be noted that Route 31 west of Brockport splits to Route 31 and Route 31A to serve Medina, Albion and Holley in Orleans County.
There are no acceptable east-west alternate routes as a permanent replacement.
2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs
Currently the Route 531 terminus at Route 36 exhibits safety and capacity deficiencies within the existing westbound ‘T’ intersection.
• Safety – The Route 531 terminus has a relatively high rate of accident occurrences when compared to statewide averages. Historical accident deficiencies are present at the intersection of Route 531
2-2 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
and Route 36 and exhibits a high number of rear-end, right-angle and left-turn accidents.
• Capacity – Peak travel delays exist at the Route 531 terminus and adjacent Route 36 intersection with Route 31, particularly in the weekday evening peak hour. Significant back-up and delays (PM) of ½ to ¾ miles are experienced in the westbound travel lanes due to the right, then left turn movements required through two (2) signalized intersections at the Terminus to continue on Route 31.
2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans
This project is on the approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as project No. H03-38.
2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments -
At the east end of the Route 531 Project terminus, the Department of Transportation rehabilitated a segment of Route 531 from the project limits to Interstate 490 under a Route 531 Maintenance by Contract (MBC) project in 2009. Work consisted of the placement of a new asphalt wearing surface. The rehabilitated roadway section maintained the existing two lanes and shoulder configuration.
The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that there are no plans to reconstruct or widen Route 531, Route 31 or Route 36 highway segments, or the adjoining segments, within the next 20 years. Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators (CARDs) have been installed along Route 31 between the Salmon Creek Road near the westerly project terminus and Sweden-Walker Road (Route 260), to improve safety by minimizing the potential of vehicular traffic crossing the centerline of the road; which was completed under a separate MBC.
2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations
2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance
2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS)
Under the highway classification system Route 531, Route 31 and Route 36 are classified as shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.1. Route 531 is on the National Highway System and is part of the 16 foot vertical clearance network. The portion of Route 531 within the project study area is designated as part of the National Network of Designated Truck Access Highways.
Exhibit 2.3.1.1 Classification Data Route 31 (west Route 31 (east Route 36 (Overlap Route 36 (south Routes Route 531 of Route 36) of Route 36) Rte 531 to Rte 31) of Route 31) Functional Urban Principal Urban Principal Urban Minor Urban Major Urban Major Classification Arterial Expressway Arterial Other Arterial Collector Collector National Highway Other NHS STP Federal Non Federal Aid Other NHS Road Other NHS Road System (NHS) Road Aid Non NHS Other NHS Road Designated Truck Yes Yes Yes Yes No Access Route Qualifying No No No No No Highway Within 1 mile of a Qualifying n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Highway Within the 16 ft vertical clearance Yes Yes No Yes No network
2-3 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
2.3.1.2. Control of Access
Route 531, Brockport-Spencerport Expressway has controlled access throughout the project length including control of access at the eastbound ramp intersection; however there is one (1) driveway along Route 36 that is within 340 feet of the Route 531 westbound terminus ramp. This driveway has been evaluated and has been recommended for relocation onto Route 31 by the NYSDOT.
Route 31, Brockport-Spencerport Road has uncontrolled access throughout the project length, with one Route 531 eastbound on-ramp, three (3) intersecting roads comprised of State, County and Local roads as well as several residential driveways within the study limits.
Route 36, Washington Street has controlled access from Route 31 to approximately 600 feet south of the Route 531/Route 36 intersection, where it changes to uncontrolled access; currently the Route 531 intersection and two (2) residential driveways exist within this Route 36 segment.
2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices
Within the project limits of the Route 531 Terminus there are two (2) traffic controlled intersections. Exhibit 2.3.1.3 describes the traffic signal-controlled intersections in the project area. The remaining intersections along Route 531 / 31 in the study area are controlled by stop signs for the side street approaches.
Exhibit 2.3.1.3 Traffic Signal Controlled Intersections Intersecting Road Description of Signal Control Remarks
Route 531 / Route 36 5 Phase - Actuated No Pedestrian Signal Heads. 60/85 Second Cycles – AM / PM Two signal Heads per approach. Route 31 / Route 36 5 Phase - Actuated No Pedestrian Signal Heads. 75/100 Second Cycle – AM / PM Two Signal Heads - NB, SB & EB Three Signal Heads - WB
2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
There are no ITS systems in operation and the Route 531 / Route 31 corridor is currently not included in the Region’s planned ITS infrastructure improvements.
2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay
Posted speed limits and operating speeds for the adjacent travel routes within the project study area is provided in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 below.
Exhibit 2.3.1.5 Speed Data Routes 531 36 (south of 531) 36 (north of 531) 31 Existing Speed Limit 65 mph 55 mph 35 mph 55 mph 85th % Operating Speed EB – 72.4 mph NB – 59.8 mph See Note 1 EB – 60.3 mph (Tube Count Data) WB – 71.0 mph SB – 56.2 mph WB – 58.2 mph Note 1: Speed is controlled by queuing between the signalized intersections.
Intersection delays are the primary cause of existing delay within the project limits, which are provided in the Level of Service report section (2.3.1.7). During the evening peak hour, ½ to ¾ mile westbound backups on Route 531 are common, due to the required right turn onto Route 36 followed by an immediate left turn at the Route 31 intersection to continue westbound along Route 31. Overall, vehicles travelling through this interchange area are experiencing 32.4 vehicle hours of delay during the morning
2-4 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
peak hour and 40.1 vehicle hours of delay during the evening peak hour due to the Route 531/Route 31 intersection delays. As these intersections are reaching their capacity, this delay is expected to nearly double in the future ETC+20 conditions.
2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes
2.3.1.6.1 Existing traffic volumes
The NYSDOT provided 24-hour volume, classification and speed data available within the project limits obtained in 2006 and 2007. Weekday morning and evening peak hour timeframes were then determined and turning movement counts were obtained on Thursday, September 18, 2008, while SUNY Brockport and local High Schools were in session. This combined data is the basis of determining present and future traffic operations. Refer to Exhibit 2.3.1.6-3 for traffic flow diagrams.
There are a relatively high percentage of heavy vehicles in the project area (3% to 9%) due to the proximity of several quarries, concrete manufacturing plants, Brockport’s Retail area including Lowes, WalMart, Wegmans and SUNY Brockport that utilize Route 31 and Route 531 for east-west travel.
Refer to Exhibits 2.3.1.6-1 through 2.3.1.6-2 for a summary of the traffic data. Travel patterns in this area are highly directional with 69% of the volume travelling eastbound in the morning peak hour and 74% travelling in the westbound direction in the evening peak hour. Additional traffic count data information is included in Appendix C.
Exhibit 2.3.1.6-1 Traffic Data Route 531 EB Route 531 WB Route 36 Route 31 Directional Distribution 69% AM / 31% PM 26% AM / 74% PM 45% AM / 55% PM 50% AM / 50% PM Peak Hour Factor 0.90 AM / 0.81 PM 0.72 AM / 0.90 PM 0.86 AM / 0.75 PM 0.80 AM / 0.92 PM
% Peak Hour Trucks 5.2 %AM / 6.8 %PM 6.1 %AM / 2.8 %PM 8.6 %AM / 5.9 %PM 5.8 %AM / 4.1%PM % Daily Trucks 6.9 % 5.2 % 8.8 % 6.5 %
Exhibit 2.3.1.6-2 Existing and Forecasted Traffic Volumes From Spencerport Rd. to From Route 36 to Route From Route 531 Ramp Route 31 Route 36 531 Ramp to Route 260 Year ADT DHV ADT DHV ADT DHV Existing 5112 326 13793 1314 22404 1577 (2008) ETC 5265 336 14207 1353 23076 1624 (2014) ETC+10 5521 352 14896 1419 24196 1703 (2024) ETC+20 5777 368 15586 1485 25317 1782 (2034) Route 531 Route 36 From Route 259 to From Colby Road to Route 36 Route 531 Year ADT DHV ADT DHV Existing EB – 12029 EB – 1611 3941 324 (2008) WB –10417 WB – 1330
2-5 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 2.3.1.6-2 Existing and Forecasted Traffic Volumes From Spencerport Rd. to From Route 36 to Route From Route 531 Ramp Route 31 Route 36 531 Ramp to Route 260 ETC EB – 12390 EB – 1659 4059 334 (2014) WB –10730 WB – 1370 ETC+10 EB – 12991 EB – 1740 4256 350 (2024) WB –11250 WB – 1436 ETC+20 EB – 13593 EB – 1820 4453 366 (2034) WB –11771 WB – 1503 Note: ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion
Exhibit 2.3.1.6-3 Existing (2008) Peak Hour Turning Movements
2.3.1.6.2 Future no-build design year traffic volume forecasts
The Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) plus 20 design year was selected per the Project Development Manual (PDM) Appendix 5. Based on historical traffic data; traffic volumes with and around the project area have experienced little to no growth in the past 5 years. An extensive assessment of growth patterns was undertaken in the Route 531 Extension study (a.k.a. Technical Memorandum) completed in April 2010. In summary, a conservative annual background growth rate of 0.5% was used to determine ETC (2014) and ETC+20 (2034) traffic volumes. As a result of the current project schedule, the original ETC & ETC+20 dates were projected 3 years earlier than the actual projected dates (current forecasted schedule has an ETC of 2017); however, the Regional Traffic Engineer concurs with retaining these dates due to the annual background growth rate. It was determined that revising the report to update a minor growth in traffic volumes was not warranted and that the minor change in vehicle volumes wouldn’t affect the decisions or conclusions set forth in this report. Peak hour turning movement volumes for all major intersections are included for the design year in Exhibits 2.3.1.6-4 & 2.3.1.6-5.
2-6 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 2.3.1.6-4 ETC (2014) Peak Hour Turning Movements
Exhibit 2.3.1.6-5 ETC+20 (2034) Peak Hour Turning Movements
2-7 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility
2.3.1.7.1 Existing level of service and capacity analysis
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measurement describing the operational conditions within a traffic stream, based on service measures such as speed and travel time, intersection delay, vehicle density, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience.
The project area was analyzed using methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. HCS+ Version 5.5 and Synchro 7 software were used to analyze the mainline and intersection conditions.
There are capacity constraints at the Route 531 Terminus and along Route 31 mainline during both the morning and evening peak hours. The signalized intersection of Route 531/Route 36 and Route 36/Route 31 are both approaching capacity. As previously mentioned, during the evening peak hour, ½ to ¾ mile westbound backups on Route 531 are common, due to the required right turn onto Route 36, followed by an immediate left turn at the Route 31 intersection to continue westbound along Route 31. Route 531 mainline is operating at acceptable levels (excluding the evening terminus backup); however, the Route 31 corridor west of the Route 531 connection is operating at capacity conditions during the morning and evening peak hours.
The existing 2008 level of services for Route 531, Route 31 and the two signalized intersection are shown in Exhibits 2.3.1.7-1 and 2 below.
2.3.1.7.2 Future no-build design year level of service
The corridor was analyzed using HCS+ Version 5.5 and Synchro 7 software for the ETC (2014) and ETC+20 (2034) design years for mainline and intersection conditions. The signalized intersection of Route 531/Route 36 and Route 36/Route 31 will both be over capacity, creating additional delays and increased queuing along Route 531 in the future. During the evening peak hour, failing conditions at the terminus will create severe congestion. Route 531 expressway mainline will continue to operate at acceptable levels (excluding the evening terminus backup).
The ETC (2014) and ETC+20 (2034) levels of service for Route 531 and the two signalized intersections are shown in Exhibits 2.3.1.7-1 and 2.
Exhibit 2.3.1.7-1 Highway Design Year Level of Service Route 531 - From Route 259 to Route 36 Morning LOS Evening LOS YEAR Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Existing (2008) B A A B ETC (2014) B A A B ETC+20 (2034) B A A B
2-8 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 2.3.1.7-2 Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec)
Existing Condition ETC Condition ETC + 20 - Null Condition (2008) (2014) (2034)
Intersection Approach AM PM AM PM AM PM
Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec)
EB Thru-RT 66.6 E 93.6 F 78.8 E 106.0 F 125.3 F 150.3 F WB LT 33.8 C 57.0 E 34.1 C 61.2 E 35.5 D 81.3 F Route 531 WB RT @ 4.2 A 30.2 C 4.6 A 38.6 D 6.4 A 77.8 E Route 36 NB Thru-RT 74.4 E 114.9 F 87.5 F 126.2 F 132.2 F 159.2 F (Traffic Signal) SB LT 22.3 C 19.6 B 22.6 C 19.7 B 23.7 C 19.9 B
SB Thru 39.4 D 21.2 C 40.7 D 21.2 C 46.9 D 21.4 C Overall 47.3 D 58.3 E 55.4 E 67.2 E 85.6 F 103.3 F EB LT 21.6 C 60.5 E 21.6 C 63.0 E 21.5 C 67.2 E
EB Thru-RT 27.5 C 41.4 D 27.6 C 41.8 D 27.6 C 43.8 D WB LT 22.8 C 35.3 D 22.9 C 35.6 D 22.9 C 36.6 D WB Thru- Route 31 @ RT 3 0.5 C 93.6 F 30.6 C 101.4 F 31.0 C 137.9 F Route 36 (Traffic NB LT 23.0 C 51.7 D 28.1 C 66.0 E 64.6 E 107.4 F Signal) NB Thru-RT 4.2 A 5.5 A 4.2 A 5.5 A 4.6 A 5.6 A
SB LT 21.5 C 41.9 D 21.6 C 42.2 D 22.4 C 42.7 D SB Thru-RT 28.0 C 44.0 D 28.9 C 48.9 D 32.7 C 52.5 D Overall 24.2 C 53.4 D 26.9 C 62.8 E 44.8 D 91.9 F
2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis
As part of this project, an update to the Route 531 Extension Study Accident Assessment was completed in September 2012 and again for the latest available 3 yrs of data from November 1, 2009 to October 31, 2012. Similar patterns were experienced, which confirms the accident data from below. The updates focused primarily on the Terminus Improvement study area including Route 31 from 700’ west of Salmon Creek Road to Route 36 (Washington Street) and Route 36 from just north of Route 31 to south of the Route 531 interchange. The prior assessment studied a larger area and covered accident data between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007, which included one (1) fatal traffic accident within the study area as shown below:
• A motorcycle heading northbound on Route 36, at the intersection with Route 531, failed to yield the Right-of-Way and collided with an eastbound truck.
A previous examination covering the three (3) year period of June 1, 1999 to May 31, 2002, also identified fatal accidents in the study area as shown below:
• A westbound vehicle on Route 31 between Route 260 and Gallup Road left the road and struck the guide rail. The accident was attributed to numerous factors including; nighttime conditions with wet, slippery pavement and alcohol involvement.
2-9 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
• An eastbound vehicle on Route 31 at Hubbell Road struck a pedestrian crossing the road. The accident was attributed to nighttime conditions and alcohol involvement on behalf of the pedestrian. • A vehicle traveling on Route 31 at Gallup Road crossed the centerline of the road and sideswiped a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. No additional contributing factors were noted in the report. • A northbound vehicle on Route 36 collided with an eastbound vehicle at the intersection with Route 531. This accident occurred during day light hours and one of the vehicles went through a red light.
The supplementary update focuses primarily on the Terminus area including Route 31 from just west of Salmon Creek Road to Route 36 (Washington Street) and Route 36 from Route 31 to just south of the Route 531 interchange. Accident history data was obtained for a three year period from December 1, 2006 through November 30, 2009. A total of 155 accidents occurred (reportable and non-reportable) within the terminus project area. Summary reports and collision diagrams are provided as attachments in Appendix C. The following summarizes the accident severity. It should be noted that no fatality or pedestrian/bicycle accidents occurred during this period.
2006-2009 Total SEGMENT Accidents Fatality Injury PDO Non-Rpt Rt. 31 - Salmon Crk to Rt. 36 84 0 18 30 36 Rt. 36 - Rt. 31 to south of Rt. 531 71 0 18 21 32 155 0 36 51 68 0% 23% 33% 44% The number of accidents that occurred at the study area intersections is shown below along with a summary of corresponding accident rates as compared to the New York State-Wide-Average (SWA):
2006 - 2009 INTERSECTION RATES # Acc. ACC Rate SWA # x SWA Rt. 31 at Salmon Creek Road 5 0.21 0.14 1.5 Rt. 31 at Gallup Road 6 0.25 0.14 1.8 Rt. 31 at Hubbel Road 4 0.17 0.14 1.2 Rt. 31 at Washington St. (Rt. 36) 15 0.71 0.43 1.6 Rt. 36 at Rt. 531 Interchange 28 1.03 0.43 2.4
2006 - 2009 TOTAL LINK* RATES # Acc. ACC Rate SWA # x SWA Rt. 31 - from Salmon Creek to Rt. 36 48 1.23 2.4 0.5 *Links includes midblock and intersection accidents *Accident rate calculations include "reportable" accidents only The incident reports were further evaluated to establish the contributing factors at the intersections noted to be operating with above SWA rates.
Route 31 at Salmon Creek Road (Northampton Park Entrance) • Five (5) reportable accidents were reported at this location; no non-reportable accident types were reported. The accident rate is 0.21 acc/mev which is above the SWA of 0.14 acc/mev. • The prevalent type of accidents are Rear End (2) and Deer (3). Contributing factors for the rear end accidents included: following too closely and driver inattention. • No discernable accident pattern is noted at this time.
2-10 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Route 31 at Gallup Road • A total of eight (8) accidents occurred at this location, including two non-reportable accidents. Six (6) reportable accidents occurred resulting in an accident rate of 0.25 acc/mev which is above the SWA of 0.14 acc/mev. • The prevalent types of accident are: Other (4), Rear End (2), Right Angle (1), and Sideswipe (1). Contributing factors included: following too closely, driver inattention, failure to yield the right of way, pavement slippery, ran-off road, snow/ice, passing improperly, alcohol involvement, and unsafe lane change. • Correctable measures for further consideration may include: deceleration/acceleration lanes for turning vehicles; improving sight distance for southbound Gallup Road traffic.
Route 31 at Hubbell Road • A total of six (6) accidents occurred at this location, including two (2) non-reportable accidents. Four (4) reportable accidents occurred resulting in an accident rate of 0.17 acc/mev which is slightly above the SWA of 0.14 acc/mev. • The prevalent types of accident are Rear End (1), Other (1), Sideswipe (1), Left Turn (1), and Deer (2). Contributing factors included: following too closely, unsafe speed, pavement slippery, failure to yield the right of way and falling asleep at the wheel. • The randomness of the accident types does not constitute an accident pattern. No countermeasures are identified at this time.
Route 31 at Route 36 Washington Street • A total of 24 accidents occurred at this location, including nine (9) non-reportable accidents. Fifteen reportable accidents occurred resulting in an accident rate of 0.71 acc/mev versus the SWA of 0.43 acc/mev. • The prevalent types of accidents are: Rear End (15), Left Turn (5), Right Angle (2) and Other (2). • The rear end and left turn patterns observed are attributable to the proximity of the Route 531 interchange. The majority of the accidents occur on the northbound approach to Route 31. Contributing factors include: unsafe speed, pavement slippery, driver inattention, following too closely, failure to yield right of way, and traffic control not working. • Potential countermeasures may include: providing greater separation from the Route 531 interchange, alternate traffic routing, or traffic signal improvements to maximize traffic flow from the interchange.
Route 531 at Route 36 • A total of 57 accidents occurred at this location, including 29 non-reportable accidents. Twenty Eight reportable accidents resulted in an accident rate of 1.03 acc/mev versus the SWA of 0.43 acc/mev. • The prevalent types of accidents are: Rear End (29), Right Angle (7), Other (6), Deer (5), Overtaking (5), Fixed Object (4), and Right Turn (1). • The prevalent contributing factors included: following too close, driver inattention, unsafe speed and pavement slippery. • The Rear End and Right Angle accident patterns are very apparent in the collision diagrams (provided in Appendix C) that include non-reportable accidents. The rear-end patterns occur along Route 531 in both directions. The Right angle accidents occur between northbound Route 36 traffic and eastbound Route 531 traffic. • Potential countermeasures may include: improving visibility of the traffic signal for northbound and eastbound direction. Advanced warning on Route 531 of queuing at the intersection should be considered. Skid resistant pavement treatment should also be considered on the Route 531 approaches. And finally, improving flow of the Route 531 traffic through the Route 31/Route 36 should be considered.
2-11 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access
There are no Emergency Response Services directly located within the project limits. The two (2) Fire Departments that provide coverage to the study area are the Spencerport Fire Department (Ogden – Parma Fire District), which serves the Town of Ogden from Gallup Road East, and the Brockport Fire Department (Sweden Fire Protection District), which serves the Town of Sweden from Gallup Road west.
The nearest ambulance companies that service the project area are Spencerport Volunteer Ambulance located on Lyell Avenue in the Village of Spencerport and Brockport Volunteer Ambulance located on Main Street in the Village of Brockport.
County and State Police services are located on Union Street (Route 259) at the intersection of Colby Street with the Ogden Police Department located ½ mile south in the Ogden Town Hall Facility also on Union Street at Ogden Center Road. The Brockport Police Department is located on Main Street in the Village of Brockport.
Other services that are in close proximity and may provide additional coverage to the project study area are as follows:
• Monroe County Sheriff – Zone C substation is 6.75 miles from Route 531 on Buffalo Road • New York State Police – located on Route 36 in the Village of Churchville , 5.9 miles away • Spencerport Fire Department – second Fire Station located on Union Street south of Chambers St, 3.3 miles away • Churchville Fire District & Rescue Squad - located on Route 36, Washington Street in the Village of Churchville, 5.3 miles away
2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions
Parking along Route 531 is restricted by law within the project limits. Parking along State Highways Route 31 & Route 36 is only regulated for Winter parking as follows: the Town of Sweden Parking Regulation 170-15, Section 170-37 prohibits parking on all roads, both sides from 2AM to 6AM from November 15th to April 15th, while the Town of Ogden Parking Ordinance 197-24.1 prohibits the parking of vehicles on all highways and rights-of-way between the hours of 7PM and 7AM from November 15th to April 15th each year. Other than the aforementioned winter parking regulations, there are no parking restrictions regulated under Chapter 197 Vehicles and Traffic within the project study area. In general, there are no reasons to park along the roadways within the project study area except in the event of a breakdown.
2.3.1.11. Lighting
There is no separate street lighting system within the highway limits and no plans by the municipalities to install a lighting system. The only lighting that exists is cobra lighting fixtures on davit arms mounted to existing overhead electric poles at the intersections with Route 31 at Route 36, Hubbell Road, Gallup Road and Salmon Creek Road.
2-12 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction
Exhibit 2.3.1.12 Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction Part Highway Limits Feature(s) being Maintained CL Lane Agency Authority No. (mi) (mi) 1 Route 531 Sta 140+00 Pavement, curbs, trees, 0.71 2.84 NYSDOT Section 12 of to Sta pavement markings and the 177+50 drainage Highway Law 2 Route 31 Sta 62+00 to Pavement, curbs, trees, 1.48 2.95 NYSDOT Section 12 of Sta. 140+00 pavement markings and the drainage Highway Law 3 Route 36 Sta 4+00 to Pavement, curbs, trees, 0.30 0.91 NYSDOT Section 12 of Washington Sta 20+00 pavement markings and the Street drainage Highway Law 4 Washington Sta 60+00 to Traffic Signal System & Signs 0.27 0.53 MCDOT Section 10 Street Sta 20+00 Subdivision 25 CR 212 Highway Law 5 Hubbell Sta 8+25 to Pavement, curbs, trees, 0.03 0.07 MCDOT Section 10 Road Sta 10+00 pavement markings and Subdivision 25 CR 206 drainage Highway Law 6. Gallup Road Sta 10+00 to Mainline including Pavement, 0.04 0.08 Town of Sweden / Section 10 Sta 12+00 curbs, shoulders, drainage, Town of Ogden, Subdivision 25 culverts, striping, signs, DPW Highway Law & landscaping and highway by agreement appurtenances. 7. Salmon Sta 8+50 to Mainline including Pavement, 0.03 0.06 MCDOT Section 10 Creek Road Sta 10+00 curbs, shoulders, drainage, Subdivision 25 CR 246 culverts, striping, signs, Highway Law landscaping and highway appurtenances.
2.3.2. Multimodal
2.3.2.1. Pedestrians
Pedestrians are prohibited on Route 531 by state law. There are no sidewalks along Route 31 and Route 36 within the project limits. The occasional pedestrian may legally use the paved shoulder along these routes. In addition, there are no pedestrian crossing signals or crosswalk markings at the signalized intersections of Route 531/Route 36 and Route 31/Route 36 or at any of the unsignalized intersections. The Route 31/Route 36 intersection has curbs on all corners except for the southwest corner. There are a total of six (6) bus stops along Route 31 within the project limits, which are located at the intersections with Route 36, Hubbell Road and Salmon Creek Road. Generators of pedestrian traffic in the project area are the six bus stops, the M&M Minimart Convenience Store at the northeast corner of the Route 31 / Route 36 intersection, Northampton Park, the Erie Canalway Trail and residential homes. The volume of pedestrian traffic in the project area is low and not expected to increase. There are no local or regional plans for sidewalks within the project limits. A pedestrian generator checklist has been completed and is included in Appendix C.
2.3.2.2. Bicyclists
Bicyclists are prohibited on the Route 531 expressway by state law. Along Route 31 bicyclists are accommodated on the shoulder. Route 31 is also Bike Route 5, a signed on-road bicycle route that extends 365 miles from Niagara Falls across New York to the Massachusetts state line. Along Route 36 bicyclists are accommodated on the shoulder or in the travel lane as the road width varies. Generators of bicycle traffic in the project area are the M&M Minimart Convenience Store at the northeast corner of the Route 31 / Route 36 intersection, Northampton Park, the Erie Canalway Trail and the residential homes. Overall, the project area receives low volumes of bicycle touring and local bicycle traffic and is not expected to increase.
2-13 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
2.3.2.3. Transit
The Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) operates RTS “Bus Route 20 – Brockport” which has six (6) stops along Route 31 within the project limits as follows: • Eastbound / Westbound stop at Route 36 • Eastbound / Westbound stop at Hubbell Road • Eastbound / Westbound stop at Salmon Creek Road
The Regional Greater Rochester Transit Authority (RGRTA) was contacted and Bus Route 20 will remain in service through the project corridor.
2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports
There are no airports, railroad stations or port entrances within or in the vicinity of the project limits.
Ledgedale Airpark is southwest of the project study area but there are no anticipated conflicts with the flight paths of aircraft using this airport.
2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands)
Northampton Park abuts the southerly right-of-way line within the project limits, except east of Route 36. You can access the park by means of Route 31 with two (2) direct park entrances from Hubbell Road and Salmon Creek Road. There is also access to the Park from Colby Street on the south with the access point from Salmon Creek Road on Route 31 serving as the main entrance.
The Erie Canal and trail is located approximately 0.55 miles to the north with direct access to Route 31 from Washington Street (CR 212) and Gallup Road.
2.3.3. Infrastructure
2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section
Route 31 is generally a two-lane full access highway with 12 ft wide travel lanes and 6 ft wide shoulders, within the Project Limits. Route 31 is intersected by State Routes 36 as well as a number of other County and local roads.
The intersections of Route 31/Route 36 (Washington Street) were most recently widened to include turn- lanes when the Route 531 extension project was completed in 1994. The posted speed limit along Route 31, within the project limits is 55 MPH and 45 MPH west and east of Washington Street, respectively.
The Route 31/Route 36 intersection is controlled by a traffic signal; there is also a signal at the termination of Route 531 at Washington Street. All other entrances onto Route 31 are stop controlled from the entering street.
Route 36 is typically a two-lane full access highway with 12 ft wide travel lanes and 7 ft shoulders, immediately north and south of Route 531. Route 531 is a four lane limited access highway which terminates at Route 36, Washington Street. The posted speed limit is 65 MPH.
See Typical Sections, Plan and Profile sheets in Appendix A.
2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Standards
This section compares the existing geometric elements with the minimum design standards used for the project. This section helps to ensure the objectives and feasible alternatives consider key deficiencies.
2-14 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
2.3.3.2.1 Critical Design Elements
The geometric roadway features within the project limits were evaluated in accordance with the current design policies in Chapter 7 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual and AASHTO’s “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004”. In order to assess the roadway features an appropriate design speed must be established to determine whether the features meet current design standards. As previously stated in Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delay, the off-peak 85 percentile speeds were calculated to be 71 (WB) & 72.4 (EB) mph for Route 531, 59.8 (NB) & 56.2 (SB) mph for Route 36 and 60.3 (EB) & 58.2 (WB) mph for Route 31. As per section 2.6.1.1 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, the design speed is established by using the anticipated off-peak 85 percentile speed within the Functional class speeds. A design speed of 70 mph will be used for Route 531 and 60 mph for Route 36 & Route 31 within the project limits.
Using a design speed of 70 mph and 60 mph, existing conditions were evaluated to determine the presence of any non-standard critical design elements, based on the current NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Standards. There are no existing nonstandard features on Route 531, Route 31 & Route 36 within the project limits.
2.3.3.2.2 Other Design Parameters
There are no existing non-conforming features within the project limits.
2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder
The Route 531 pavement structure within the project limits is comprised of stone subbase (12”) with 11” of overlying asphalt pavement courses. The original pavement section was constructed in 1994. In 2009, the pavement was milled (1”) and filled (1”) and crack-sealed the following year (2010). The pavement generally appears to be in good condition.
The Route 36 roadway segment was widened with full depth flexible pavement and rehabilitated in 1994 to accommodate the Route 531 extension project. As such, the condition of the effected Route 36 segments in the vicinity of Route 531 are generally in good condition with limited pavement distress.
Route 31 was originally constructed in 1915 and then in 1926 was updated to rigid PCC (8” thick slab) pavement. In 1955 and 1967, the pavement was widened with full depth asphalt pavement. Asphalt shoulders were added and the PCC slabs were overlayed with asphalt concrete. At present, the entire pavement/shoulder surface is overlaid with asphalt. NYSDOT determined that the Route 31 pavement condition is rated as fair to poor with transverse, longitudinal and edge joint distresses throughout, and a significant amount of wheel path rutting and asphalt raveling present.
A summary of the Route 31 Pavement Evaluation Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) is included as a Technical Appendix B1, available upon request.
2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems
The Route 531, Route 31 and Route 36 drainage system consists predominantly of open ditching with some curbed sections and catch basins at the edge of shoulders near the Route 531 terminus and Route 36 / Route 31 intersection. The catch basins on Route 36 are connected to a storm pipe outlet that drains into open ditching that runs parallel to Route 531.
The open drainage systems that exist along Route 531 and Route 31/36 drain westerly and easterly, respectively, with the western drainage system outletting into Salmon and Spring Creeks where it flows northerly under Route 31 via large box culverts. Although functioning adequately at this time, it is presumed that the majority of the existing underground stormwater drainage system (including structures) on Route 31 is deteriorated and likely reaching its design life. The existing closed drainage system on Route 36 is in good condition based on its relatively new age.
2-15 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
The entire open ditching system is in good condition and functioning as intended.
2.3.3.5. Geotechnical
A soil investigation report was completed for the pavement and subgrade along Route 531 and Route 36 and is included in the Technical Appendices.
At this time, there appears to be no identifiable soil conditions within the project corridor that will affect design or construction of this project. However, this report revealed the close proximity of rock to the existing ground surface throughout the corridor. Generally, rock is approximately 10’ or greater below the existing ground surface.
2.3.3.6. Structures
Currently there are no bridges within the project limits with three (3) large culverts that exist along Route 531 and Route 31. One (1) Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) has an opening of 34” x 36” under Route 31 that is rated fair; one (1) 54” RCP culvert drains under the Route 531 eastbound on-ramp is in good condition; and one (1) 9’-7 5/8” x 19’-3 7/8” three sided Reinforced Concrete culvert under Route 31 at Salmon Creek with a rating pending.
2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts
There are no bridges over waterways within the project limits, but the project includes one (1) major box culvert that conveys Salmon Creek under Route 31. It was originally constructed in 1915 using standard bridge elements and construction techniques (i.e. abutments, footers and wing walls). Field measurements describe the culvert dimensions as being approximately 6’-8” x 19’-3 7/8” with an open/natural channel bottom and solid reinforced concrete walls and top slab.
Salmon Creek is one (1) of the tributaries that is included in the Monroe County Flood Insurance Study, dated August 2008. Although flood mapping exists for this specific stream reach, a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis that corresponds to the floodplain boundaries does not exist. The detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of Salmon Creek begins more than ten (10) miles downstream of the project site.
Since flowrates for this segment of Salmon Creek are not available from the Flood Insurance Study, they were estimated by first delineating the contributing watershed on a USGS topographic map. Then, using regression equations described in “USGS Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in New York”, the 50-year design flowrate was computed.
Using HY8 culvert hydraulic analysis software, the hydraulic characteristics were determined as related to capacity, available freeboard and in-stream velocities. The following provides a list of relevant data for the subject Salmon Creek Culvert.
• Approximate culvert dimensions: 9’-7 5/8” x 19’-3 7/8” reinf. concrete with natural bottom • Contributing watershed area: 14.5 square miles • Design flow rate (50-year event): 722 cubic feet per second (cfs) • Headwater to depth (HW/D) ratio: 0.85 (Max. allowable = 1.0, existing capacity is sufficient) • Existing freeboard: 1.27ft (50-year water surface to bottom of top slab) • Existing stream flow velocity: 4.39 feet per second (fps), non-erosive
2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators
Route 531 and Route 31 have existing corrugated w-beam guiderail within the project study area to protect the on-ramp directly over the Salmon-Creek tributary, Salmon Creek box-culvert and various side slope treatments. The existing guide rail is generally in fair to good condition.
2-16 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
2.3.3.9. Utilities Exhibit - 2.3.3.9 Existing Utilities Owner Type Location/Side Length Condition/Conflict RG&E Gas Main 62+00-79+00,RT 1700 Condition unknown; no obvious conflicts Route 31 79+00-92+50,LT 1350 92+50-125+85,RT 3335 125+85-130+00,LT 415 Route 31(W) 6+85-19+00,LT 1215 19+00-30+00,RT 1100 13+50-29+70,LT 1620 18+15-29+50,LT 1135 Route 31 (E) 30+00-38+50,RT 850 Route 36 3+00-20+40,LT 1740 17+75-19+75,LT 200 19+75-28+90,LT 915 Gallup Road 10+00-12+00,LT 200 RG&E OH Power Line 86+00-130+00,LT 4400 Fair Condition; potential conflicts Route 31 (W) 6+85-29+50,LT 2265 17+50-30+00,RT 1250 Route 31 (E) 30+00-38+50,RT 850 Route 36 3+00-15+00,RT 1200 15+00-20+00,LT 500 20+00-28+90,LT 890 Gallup Road 10+75-12+00,RT 125 Hubbell Road 8+25-10+00,LT 175 Underground Power 97+25-98+00,LT 75 Condition unknown; no obvious conflicts Nat. Grid OH Power Line 62+00-69+50,RT 750 Route 31 68+25-86+00,LT 1775 MCWA Water Line 62+00-64+00,LT 200 Newer condition; no obvious conflicts Route 31 64+00-80+00,RT 1600 80+00-86+00,LT 600 86+00-91+00,LT 500 Newer condition; potential conflicts 91+00-122+75,RT 3175 Newer condition; potential conflicts 122+75-130+00,LT 725 Route 31 (W) 6+85-29+50,LT 2265 Route 31 (E) 30+15-38+50,LT 835 Route 36 3+00-14+50,LT 1150 14+50-28+90,RT 1440 20+50-23+25,LT 275 Gallup Road 11+00-12+00,RT 100 Hubbell Road 8+25-9+50,LT 125 Ogden Tele. Overhead Telephone 62+00-69+50,RT 750 Fair Condition; potential conflicts Route 31 68+25-90+00,LT 2175 90+00-130+00,LT 4000 Route 31 (W) 6+85-17+50,LT 1065 17+50-30+00,RT 1250 Route 31 (E) 30+00-38+50,LT 850 Route 36 3+00-15+00,RT 1200 15+00-20+00,LT 500 20+00-28+90,LT 890 Gallup Road 10+75-12+00,RT 125 Hubbell Road 8+25-10+00,LT 175
2-17 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit - 2.3.3.9 Existing Utilities Owner Type Location/Side Length Condition/Conflict Underground Telephone 92+75-98+00,LT 75 Condition unknown; potential conflicts Frontier Overhead Telephone Route 36 18+00-28+90,LT 1090 Fair Condition; potential conflicts Time Warner Overhead Cable 62+00-69+50,RT 750 Fair Condition; potential conflicts Route 31 68+25-90+00,LT 2175 90+00-130+00,LT 4000 Route 31 (W) 7+00-17+50,LT 1050 17+50-30+00,RT 1250 Route 31 (E) 30+00-38+50,RT 850 Route 36 3+00-15+00,RT 1200 15+00-20+00,LT 500 20+00-28+90,LT 890 Gallup Road 10+75-12+00,RT 125 Hubbell Road 8+25-10+00,LT 175
2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities
There are no railroads within the project limits and no at-grade crossings within 1 mile that could impact traffic conditions. There exists one abandoned Railroad bed / overpass approximately 2,600 ft north of Route 31 on Washington Street.
2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities
This section focuses on the critical existing areas to identify potential enhancement opportunities related to the project and to help avoid and minimize impacts. Chapter 4 focuses on the impacts, enhancements, and mitigation.
2.3.4.1. Landscape
Route 531 is a typical expressway landscape with grass. Trees exist along the edge of the right-of-way. Along the north side of Route 31, residential properties are interspersed between wooded lots and farm fields. Northampton Park is along the south side of Route 31 and the west side of Route 36. The park is primarily a dense wooded area with Salmon Creek and Spring Creek flowing through the woods. Existing, naturally occurring vegetation includes ash, maple, cottonwood and willow trees, honeysuckle and sumac shrubs, and several types of vines growing on some of the trees and shrubs within the right- of-way. Most of the vegetation planted along the road in front of residential properties functions to screen the road from the houses.
2.3.4.1.1 Terrain
The overall terrain along Route 531 and Route 31 throughout the project is generally flat with some rolling slopes approaching and departing the Salmon Creek area. Route 36 has a gentle slope which crests at the southerly project limit and descends towards the Route 31 intersection and levels out.
2.3.4.1.2 Unusual Weather Conditions
There are no unusual weather conditions to consider during design for the Route 531 Terminus area; however, consideration should be given to winter time black ice formation on Route 31 where the tree canopy continually shades the roadway surface during the winter months.
2-18 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
2.3.4.1.3 Visual Resources
The Route 531/31 project corridor extends from 1000 feet+/- east of Washington Street to Salmon Creek Road. The existing landscape through the project corridor, from most to least common, includes wooded parkland, cropland, fallow fields, woodlots and wetlands. There are scattered clusters of residences along the project corridor. Salmon Creek is visible during the times when leaves are not present.
The highway is the dominant man made feature in the landscape. The existing highway transitions from a divided four lane limited access expressway at Washington Street to a two lane undivided rural highway progressing to the west. West of Washington Street the existing highway is made up of long straight sections connected by short curves that reveal the next straight section, typical of a high speed, low volume rural highway. This appearance is not consistent with the current use as a high volume arterial. The visual volume of traffic is also not compatible with adjacent residential land use.
Viewer groups include commuter motorists, adjacent residents, park users and occasional bicyclists and pedestrians. Most viewers are familiar with the corridor and are therefore more sensitive to changes in the landscape as opposed to the overall visual character.
Views from the road are limited by mature vegetation and the lower position of the road in the surrounding topography. Views to the road are mostly from adjacent properties and the road is not visible in distant views outside the corridor.
2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Enhancements
There is a potential opportunity for environmental enhancements within the project limits. Northampton Park exists along the entire south side of Route 31, which is located behind a rather wide right of way (ROW). Originally, this excess highway ROW was explored for enhancement to provide a multi-use trail for pedestrians and bicyclists and was investigated for restoration and/or use for enhanced wetland mitigation/stormwater facilities. This wide right of way presents itself as an opportunity but at some costs to the environment from adverse impacts.
2.3.5. Miscellaneous
Currently there are no other projects within the area that will require coordination to ensure adequate maintenance of traffic. During construction, normal congestion and decreased mobility will occur through the project corridor due to construction activities. It is anticipated that this decrease in mobility will be temporary and the proposed construction improvements will significantly improve mobility through the project study limits, once completed. Coordination with the Brockport & Spencerport School district transportation departments and the transit provider (RTS) will be required to maintain the integrity of the school bussing and transit bus routes.
2-19 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ______
This chapter discusses the alternatives considered and examines the engineering aspects for all feasible alternatives to address project objectives in Chapter 1 of this report.
3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study
Alternative 4 – Route 531/Route 36 Half Diamond Interchange with Route 31 improvements
This alternative would consist of a new Half Diamond interchange between Route 531 and Route 36. The two (2) Half Diamond ramps would construct the Route 531 westbound exit and eastbound entrance to and from Route 36 to form the interchange on the east side of Route 36. Two connector ramps are provided to and from the new alignment and the Route 31/Route 36 intersection. Route 531 would transition to and from Route 31 by means of one alignment providing a continuous movement. Westbound Route 531 would travel under Route 36 and over a realigned portion of Route 31 before changing to Route 31. The new Route 531 / Route 31 alignment would transition from a 4 lane expressway to a 2 lane arterial through the interchange (east-to-west). Eastbound Route 531 would exit Route 31 as a taper type exit, as it currently does, and continue eastbound to the expressway. This alternative would address safety deficiencies and incorporate traffic calming techniques; refer to Exhibit 3.1-1 below.
Exhibit 3.1-1 Half Diamond Interchange Alternative 4
This improvement eliminates the existing Route 531/Route 36 traffic signal and would Re-route the major evening traffic movement from Route 531 that currently turns right onto Route 36, then left at the proceeding Route 31/Route 36 signalized intersection. The highly directional volume of traffic and the lack of storage space between Route 531 and Route 31 are the main reasons for the evening back-up along Route 531 from the Terminus.
Route 31 would be realigned west of Route 36 to provide a continuous east-west movement (via 2 connector ramps) and to accommodate the proposed Route 531 interchange. Route 31 would pass under
3-1 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
the Route 531 westbound travel lanes before joining back to the original Route 31 roadway near the Route 36 intersection. Route 531 westbound acceleration and eastbound deceleration lanes and ramps would be provided for merging to and from the realigned Route 31. Traffic calming features would be provided along Route 31 as you continue westerly towards Salmon Creek Road as described in Section 3.2.1.1.
The Half Diamond configuration will reduce delay through the terminus by allowing the mainline traffic to not be impeded by the traffic signal heading easterly and the right and left turn movements required to continue westerly would be eliminated. It would also allow the eastbound and westbound Brockport – Spencerport traffic to continue along Route 31. In addition the Half Diamond interchange would provide a continuous smooth movement between the Route 531 – Route 31 transition and reduce rear end and intersection accidents.
As mentioned, this option would retain the Route 31 east-west movement that currently exists within the project limits, however Route 31 would be realigned with a slight circuitous alignment under Route 531 to accommodate and minimize impacts from Route 531 westbound travel lanes. In proposing this, the two proposed horizontal curves along Route 31 are non-standard curves which do not meet the design speed of 60 mph for this segment. In addition the horizontal sight distance due to the bridge abutment is limited to 375’, which does not meet the desired Stopping Sight distance of 570’.
The estimated cost for this alternative is $32.45M, which is more than the Full Diamond grade separated interchange (Alternative 5). This option would negatively impact the adjacent residential homes (visually) including a historically eligible property, within the corridor and would introduce three (3) non-standard features. Due to the impacts to adjacent properties, higher costs as compared to other alternatives and low public support, this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative 6 – Route 531/Route 36 Roundabout with Route 31 improvements
This alternative would consist of a new two lane roundabout between Route 531 and Route 36. The two lane roundabout would accommodate both Route 531 and Route 36 approaches. Route 531 would transition to and from Route 31 by means of one alignment providing a continuous movement just south of existing Route 31. Westbound Route 531 would enter and exit the roundabout at Route 36 and continue westerly before connecting back to Route 31 and would transition from a four lane expressway to a two lane rural arterial immediately west of the Roundabout. Eastbound Route 531 would follow the Route 31 taper type exit, as it exists today; continue eastbound through the Roundabout and onto the expressway.
This improvement would eliminate the existing Route 531 / Route 36 traffic signal and the major evening traffic movement that currently turns right onto Route 36, and then left at the proceeding Route 31 / Route 36 signalized intersection. The highly directional volume of traffic and the lack of storage space between Route 531 and Route 31 are the main reasons for the evening back-up along Route 531 from the Terminus.
Former Route 31 would be revised to a cul-de-sac approximately 2,000 feet west of Route 36, which would continue to provide access to the residential homes on the north side along this segment. Instead of the Route 31 traffic movements that exist today, traffic would proceed to and from the Route 531 intersection by using Route 36 for a continuous east-west movement. Route 31 would be enhanced to improve overall safety by providing Traffic calming features as you continue westerly towards Salmon Creek Road as described in Section 3.2.1.1.
This alternative would maintain the Route 31 eastbound and westbound Brockport – Spencerport traffic, by using turning maneuvers through the Route 531 / Route 36 roundabout and it would also provide an improved transition and a more direct movement between Route 531 and Route 31.
However, due to future traffic demands the Roundabout would not accommodate the corridor volumes, thereby degrading the Level of Service to fail in peak commuter directions, which would allow rear end
3-2 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
accidents to continue as a result of peak hour traffic queuing. Utilizing a Roundabout to correct the present capacity and safety problems will not satisfy the project objectives or the programming goal and this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.
3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives
3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives
Alternative 1 – ‘Null’ or No Build / Maintenance Alternative – Existing Conditions
The No-build/maintenance alternative would retain the existing transportation system as it currently exists with pavement sections, alignments and geometrics retained at the Route 531 terminus, including Route 36 and Route 31 between Salmon Creek Road and Route 36. The existing study area would receive routine maintenance and repair efforts in the future. Doing nothing to correct the present capacity and safety problems will not satisfy the project objectives; however, this alternative has been retained for comparison purposes with the other feasible alternatives.
Three (3) additional alternatives have been determined ‘Feasible’ and will be studied further within this report. Common to all the feasible alternatives is the incorporation of Traffic calming features and safety improvements along Route 31 discussed below.
3.2.1.1 Route 31 Traffic Calming Features / Safety Improvements - Included with all feasible alternatives
A critical project design concern, voiced by the public, was the reduction of vehicle speeds within the corridor, which was the initiative for the traffic calming and safety improvement evaluation. The section of Route 31 from Washington Street (Route 36) to Gallup Road is a speed “transition area” where Route 531 westbound traffic must transition from the 65 mph divided expressway speeds, east of the terminus, to a 55 mph undivided rural arterial within a residential setting that exists to the west. The 55 mph posted speed limit for this transition area does not appear to be adhered to since the vehicle speeds are 5 – 10 mph over the posted speed limit (see Exhibit 2.3.1.5 in Chapter 2.3.1.5). In addition, the intersection accident rates are generally 1.5 times greater than the State wide average rates with significant rear end/queuing accidents and a high occurrence of right angle type accidents (high accident severity). A traffic calming design approach will help reduce speeds to the posted speed limit and thereby help reduce the associated accidents within the project limits and beyond towards Route 260. Most of the traffic calming features described below will be incorporated into each feasible alternative between the westerly project limits and Washington Street (Route 36).
According to the definition in the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 25; “Traffic Calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users”.
This segment of roadway is classified as a Category IV Facility by Chapter 25 of the HDM that includes freeways, parkways, arterials, expressways and all other high speed roadways where priority is given to the motorized vehicle either by prohibiting non-motorized access, providing shoulders that bicyclists or pedestrians may use, or providing separate facilities. The selection of traffic calming measures, where bicycles or pedestrians are allowed is limited and consists primarily of warning or regulatory signs to alert motorists of designated bike routes or crossing points. Some suitable roadside development includes refuge islands, island channelization, route modifications and traffic control devices.
It is the goal of this project to introduce feasible and practical traffic calming measures to achieve lower travel speeds on Route 531 approaching Route 31 and along Route 31, within the Project Limits. Based on various traffic calming techniques permitted for a Category IV facility, such as this, the following traffic calming measures have been determined appropriate for this project and will be considered:
3-3 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
• Introduction of medians and median treatments;
• Signing, striping and advanced warning signs for westbound traffic;
• Removal of the Route 31/Route 36 existing traffic signal, due to the signal phasing/coordination and proximity with the Route 531/Route 36 existing traffic signal (visual clutter / confusing);
• Sweeping horizontal curves along Route 31 at the intersections of Hubbell Road and Gallup Road to encourage lower speeds by introducing horizontal curves using 50mph design speed criteria;
• Modified Intersection and channelization at Hubbell Road and Gallup Road.
Landscape Development to provide a perceived setting change for traffic calming was considered but determined not applicable due to the 30’ clear zone design criteria requirement.
Compensation for removing the existing Route 531 to Route 31 westbound movement that effectively reduces speed by requiring vehicles to turn right onto Route 36, then left at the proceeding Route 31/Route 36 intersection has been considered. This existing traffic calming movement reduces vehicle speed considerably and will be removed under all alternatives. To address the removal of this traffic calming movement through the speed transition zone at the Route 531 terminus and along Route 31, sweeping horizontal curves through two intersection modifications were designed at Hubbell Road and Gallup Road; these curves meet the design requirements for an operating speed of 50 mph. The proposed 2300 ft & 3480 ft horizontal curves through these intersections will accommodate 50 mph speeds with 4.6% & 3.3% superelevation, respectively based on the 2004 AASHTO design guide and HDM Chapter 2 Appendix A, Section 2.7.2.1 F for Arterial – Rural. Advance speed warning signs will be provided in both east and westbound directions in accordance with MUTCD Section 2C based on as-built conditions. The intersection modifications will allow for the separation of turning traffic at Hubbell and Gallup Roads. Refer to Exhibit 3.2.1-1 for the proposed Route 31 Traffic Calming / Safety Improvements.
Key elements of Route 31 Traffic Calming Features / Safety Improvements include:
Geometry • Improves the Route 31 intersections with Hubbell Road and Gallup Road by introducing horizontal curves designed for 50 mph.
• Provides Route 31 left turn lanes at Hubbell Road, Gallup Road and Salmon Creek Road.
Control of Access • Control of access is proposed along the north side of Route 31 from just east of Salmon Creek to Gallup Road. Safety improvements will be realized by not allowing driveways within the high-speed transition area.
Right of Way • Route 31 mainline improvements will require ROW acquisitions. Route 31 will require eight (8) Fee without Access acquisitions. Six (6) residential impacts along the north side are included in the above acquisitions, which are located 1200’ to 3200’ east of Gallup Road. These are required to provide traffic calming features and control of access to avoid driveways in the high speed transition area from Route 36 to Gallup Road.
3-4 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.2.1-1 Route 31 Traffic Calming / Safety Improvements Common to all Feasible Alternatives
3-5 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Route 31/Route 36 Common Modifications – Included with all feasible alternatives
Former Route 31 would be revised to a cul-de-sac approximately 2,000 feet west of Route 36, which would continue to provide access to the residential homes on the north side along this segment. The Route 31 through movements at Route 36 would be eliminated, requiring left and right turn movements onto Route 36 to continue east and west on Route 31. This is a less direct movement for traffic, including bicyclists and pedestrians. The existing Route 31 / Route 36 traffic signal would be removed and the intersection would become a two-way stop, with Route 31 under stop control and Route 36 having the right-of-way. Sidewalk will be provided on both sides of Route 36, north of Route 31 to the northern project limits, and along both sides of Route 31, east of Route 36 extending to the intersection with Blackburn Knoll on the north side and approximately 650 feet on the south side. The shoulders will be widened to 8 feet in both directions along Route 31/Bike Route 5 within the project limits. These provisions will improve the conditions for bicycle and pedestrian travel.
As mentioned above, the Route 31 improvements would realign Hubbell and Gallup Road intersections to enhance access to and from Route 31. The Hubbell Road intersection would incorporate a channelized island slightly realigned to the north to provide left turn storage to Hubbell Road and an acceleration lane for left turn movements out of Hubbell Road. The Gallup Road intersection would be realigned to the south and incorporate a continuous two-way left turn lane (CTWLTL) along Route 31 between Salmon Creek Road (Northampton Park) and Gallup Road and provide an acceleration lane Eastbound onto Route 31.
The CTWLTL will accommodate a left turn lane to Salmon Creek and Gallup Road and provide a storage area for the residential driveways along the north side of Route 31 within this segment. In addition, a short segment immediately east of the Gallup Road intersection would provide a center lane prior to the proposed Route 31 Raised median for storage and as an acceleration lane for southbound Gallup Road left turn movements.
A varying center median treatment is proposed on Route 31 between Gallup Road and the Route 531/36 terminus area. Under Alternative 2 – the Conventional Signalized intersection will provide a 6’ wide raised median between Gallup Road and Route 36. Under Alternative 3 – the Signalized Superstreet will provide a 6’ wide raised median between Gallup Road and the culvert at Salmon Creek, then develop a grass median before changing back to a raised median within the median crossover area. Under Alternative 5 – the Full Diamond interchange will provide a 6’ wide raised median between Gallup Road and the Route 36 interchange. This traffic calming feature will separate opposing traffic and provide turn lanes through this segment. A continuous two-way left turn lane (CTWLTL) will be provided along Route 31 between Gallup Road and Salmon Creek Road, for all alternatives.
These treatments meet the project objectives by improving corridor safety, reducing accidents and the potential number and severity of accidents by congestion reduction, separating opposing traffic and improving traffic conditions with proposed traffic calming within the project limits. In addition this treatment will provide increased intersection/linear capacity and corridor mobility along Route 31. Finally, the pavement conditions will be restored via reconstruction of Route 531 and Route 36 with a combination of mill & overlay, widening and reconstruction treatment to Route 31.
A highway lighting system is being considered for Alternatives 2 & 3 at the Route 531 / Route 36 at-grade intersections to assist motorists in determining that the roadway characteristics are changing. Highway lighting is also being considered at the intersections of Route 31 with Hubbell, Gallup and Salmon Creek Roads to visually enhance the proposed intersection modifications.
Key elements of Route 31/Route 36 Common Modifications include:
Geometry • The new terminus would provide a less direct movement for traffic, including bicyclists and pedestrians, by eliminating the Route 31 through movement at Route 36 and requiring left and right movements onto Route 36 to continue east and west on Route 31.
3-6 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
• Includes widening the shoulder to a minimum of 8 feet in both directions along Route 31/Bike Route 5 and Route 36 within the project limits, to improve the conditions for bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Environmental • There are no floodplain impacts.
• There are no significant noise or visual impacts.
Discussion of Feasible Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 along with their key elements are discussed in the following segments.
Alternative 2 – Route 531/Route 36 At-grade Conventional Signalized Intersection with Route 31 Improvements Alternative 2 will modify the existing Route 531 infrastructure by providing an enhanced Route 531 / Route 36 At-grade intersection to improve mobility and safety through the Route 531 terminus. This alternative would address safety deficiencies and incorporate traffic calming techniques. It would consist of a conventional four-leg signalized intersection at Route 531 and Route 36 with distinct channelization on the approaches for turning movements. The Route 531 to Route 31 transition would be with one alignment providing movement just south of existing Route 31 basically along the current eastbound on ramp alignment. Route 531 would connect directly to Route 31 and would transition from a four lane expressway to a two lane rural arterial west of Route 36.
This alternative would replace the existing Route 531 / Route 36 intersection with a conventional four-leg signalized intersection, which the major evening traffic movement would negotiate. This intersection will operate with the main through movement continuing straight along Route 531 to Route 31, which currently turns right onto Route 36, then left at the proceeding Route 31 / Route 36 signalized intersection; refer to Exhibit 3.2.1-2 below for the conventional signalized intersection.
A Conventional Signalized intersection will reduce delay through the terminus by providing mainline traffic adequate green time to maximize the Route 531 through movements and by eliminating the right and left turn movements required to continue westerly. The intersection is expected to operate at LOS B in design year 2034, in comparison to LOS F under existing conditions. It would maintain the Route 31 eastbound and westbound Brockport – Spencerport traffic, by using turning maneuvers through the Route 531 / Route 36 intersection. In addition the signalized intersection would provide a more direct movement between Route 531 and Route 31, provide a viable speed transition and reduce rear end and intersection accidents as a result of reduced peak hour traffic queuing.
Route 531 pavement would generally be retained to the east of Route 36 and reconstructed to the west, while Route 31 would receive mostly reconstruction with minor rehabilitation and widening along with minor installation of curbs to facilitate drainage and minimize grading impacts. Alternative 2 would include a new traffic signal, raised medians and raised islands at the intersection, new signing & pavement markings and the installation of an open ditch drainage system. The proposed scope of work for Alternative 2 would provide geometrically adequate travel lanes for 70 mph and 60 mph design speeds on Route 531 and Route 36 / Route 31 respectively.
This alternative is a typical signalized intersection where pedestrians cross using the pedestrian push buttons, countdown timers and crosswalks. The crossing distances for all legs of the intersection will be longer as compared to the existing intersection. To aid and protect pedestrians crossing the intersection,
3-7 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.2.1-2 Conventional Signalized Intersection Alternative 2
3-8 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
raised medians and raised islands would provide refuge for pedestrians who begin crossing too late or are only capable of walking exceptionally slow.
This alternative provides two methods for bicyclists heading east on Route 31/Bike Route 5 to cross the conventional signalized intersection. The first method allows bicyclists to merge left across two travel lanes to enter an exclusive bicycle left turn lane to turn left onto Route 36. The second method allows bicyclists to stay on the shoulder and proceed straight across Route 36, stopping on the far side of the intersection (at the southeast corner) before turning their bicycle to the left and proceeding north on Route 36 across Route 531. To improve the accommodations for southbound bicyclists on Route 36, an exclusive bicycle through lane is provided to the left of the right turn lane.
Key elements of Alternative 2 include:
Geometry • Improves the Route 531 transition from an expressway to a rural principal arterial, by providing a four way signalized intersection at Route 36.
• Improves the Route 531 / Route 36 intersection by providing intersection channelization for traffic calming and assist and provides a refuge area for pedestrians.
Operational • Improve Route 531 mobility, capacity and safety of the expressway transition to Route 31.
Control of Access • Control of access for this alternative will meet the criteria in HDM for Other Freeways.
Right of Way • Route 531 and Route 31 mainline improvements will require ROW acquisitions.
• It is anticipated that overhead and underground Utility lines within the proposed Route 531 and Route 31 mainline improvements will require relocation.
Environmental • There are 0.68 Acres of wetland impacts.
• There are 1.95 Acres of Agricultural district impacts.
• There are 2.13 acres of prime farmland soil impacts.
• There are no Floodplain impacts.
• There is no significant noise or visual impacts.
Cost • Total estimated construction cost, including Right-of-Way for this alternative is $18.37 M.
Project Goals • These improvements meet the project objectives for the Route 531 Terminus as discussed in Chapter 1 of this document.
Alternative 3 – Route 531/Route 36 At-grade Signalized Superstreet Median Crossover with Route 31 Improvements
Alternative 3 also provides a Route 531 / Route 36 At-grade intersection by redesigning the Route 531 infrastructure to improve mobility and safety through the Route 531 Terminus. This alternative would address safety deficiencies and incorporate traffic calming techniques. It would consist of a signalized superstreet median crossover at Route 531 and Route 36. The superstreet alternative would provide improved operations for Route 531 through movements and reduce delays for left turns off the main line.
3-9 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
The median crossover will require the Route 36 vehicle traffic that has considerably less volume than Route 531, to perform an indirect maneuver by way of a U-turn in the Route 531 median approximately 600 feet from the intersection. The U-turn movement will allow the sidestreet traffic to proceed back towards Route 36 to complete their through or left turn maneuver.
With a superstreet median crossover, Route 36 drivers cannot proceed straight through the intersection, a through movement is accomplished by turning right onto Route 531, performing a U-turn through the crossover and turning right back onto Route 36. Also, with the median U-turn design, drivers are not able to turn left from Route 36 onto Route 531, the median U-turn is also required to accomplish the left-turn maneuver. This intersection treatment is most applicable where there are high mainline traffic volumes, as with Route 531/Route 31, and significantly smaller side road volumes comparable to Route 36. Refer to Exhibit 3.2.1-3 for the Superstreet median crossover plan.
The Route 531 and Route 31 transition would also be by means of one alignment just south of existing Route 31 along the existing eastbound on ramp. Route 531 would connect directly to Route 31 and would transition from a four lane expressway to a two lane rural arterial west of Route 36. Alternative 3 would replace the existing Route 531 / Route 36 traffic signal and the major evening movement with a signalized superstreet median crossover intersection. The main through movement that currently turns right onto Route 36, then left at the proceeding Route 31 / Route 36 signalized intersection will continue straight to Route 31, thereby significantly reducing delay and queuing. Route 31 would be enhanced to improve overall safety by providing Traffic calming features as you continue westerly towards Salmon Creek Road as described in Section 3.2.1.1 above.
A Signalized Superstreet intersection would reduce delay through the terminus by providing mainline traffic approximately 40% added green time to maximize the Route 531 through movements and by eliminating the right and left turn movements required to continue westerly. It would maintain the Route 31 eastbound and westbound Brockport – Spencerport traffic, by using turning movements through the Route 531/Route 36 intersection. Overall the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C/B (AM/PM) for the design year 2034. In addition the signalized intersection would provide a more direct maneuver between Route 531 and Route 31, provide an improved transition and reduce rear end and right-angle intersection accidents as a result of reduced peak hour traffic queuing.
Route 531 pavement would generally be reconstructed, while Route 31 would receive mostly reconstruction with minor rehabilitation and widening along with minor installation of curbs to facilitate drainage and minimize grading impacts. Alternative 3 also includes the installation of an open ditch drainage system, new traffic signal, new signing and pavement markings. The proposed scope of work for Alternative 3 would provide geometrically adequate travel lanes for 70 mph and 60 mph design speeds on Route 531 and Route 31/Route 36 respectively.
For north and southbound pedestrians on Route 36, the crossing distance of the signalized superstreet intersection would be longer and would require longer wait times as compared to the existing intersection. This is a three stage crossing where southbound pedestrians are routed to the northeast corner of the intersection where they cross the east side of the intersection to get to the raised island. Pedestrians then cross the island diagonally before crossing the west side of the intersection to get to the southwest corner. Finally, pedestrians should cross to the southeast corner of the intersection to walk south, facing traffic. Northbound pedestrians are routed to the southwest corner of the intersection where they cross following the reverse order described above. Pedestrians should use the pedestrian push buttons, countdown timers and crosswalks to safely cross each stage of the intersection.
Northbound bicyclists on Route 36 have two methods to cross the intersection. The first method allows bicyclists to turn right onto Route 531, perform a U-turn through the crossover and turn back onto Route 36 north. This method significantly increases the distance it takes to cross Route 36 as compared to the existing intersection and has safety issues for less experienced bicyclists and children. The second method allows northbound bicyclists to stop at the southeast corner of the intersection before turning their bicycle to the left and using the crosswalk to proceed west across Route 36, stopping at the southwest
3-10 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.2.1-3 Signalized Superstreet Median Crossover Alternative 3
3-11 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
corner of the intersection. When crossing, bicyclists may choose to ride against traffic or walk their bicycle. Bicyclists then turn their bicycle to the right before using the crosswalk to proceed north across the west side of the intersection to get to the raised island. Bicyclists then cross the island diagonally before using the crosswalk to proceed north across the east side of the intersection to get to the northeast corner and proceed north on Route 36. Southbound bicyclists on Route 36 have the same methods described above to cross the intersection, except they would use Route 31 to perform a U-turn through the crossover.
This alternative provides two methods for bicyclists heading east on Route 31/Bike Route 5 to cross the signalized superstreet intersection. The first method allows bicyclists to merge left across two travel lanes to enter an exclusive bicycle left turn lane to turn left onto Route 36. The second method allows bicyclists to stay on the shoulder of Route 31/Bike Route 5 to get to the southwest corner of the intersection and then use the crosswalks and raised island to get to the northwest corner of the intersection.
Key elements of Alternative 3 include:
Geometry • Improves the Route 531 transition from an expressway to a rural principal arterial, by providing a signalized superstreet median crossover at Route 36.
• Replaces the existing traffic signal at Route 531 / Route 36 intersection, which has accidents associated with the existing signals visibility.
Operational • Improves Route 531 mobility, capacity and safety of the expressway transition to Route 31.
Control of Access • Control of access for this alternative will meet the criteria in HDM for Other Freeways.
Right of Way • Route 531 and Route 31 mainline improvements will require ROW acquisitions.
• It is anticipated that overhead and underground Utility lines within the proposed Route 531 and Route 31 mainline improvements will require relocation.
Environmental • There are 0.70 Acres of wetland impacts.
• There are 1.95 Acres of Agricultural district impacts.
• There are 2.18 Acres of prime farmland soil impacts.
• There are no Floodplain impacts.
• There is no significant noise or visual impacts.
Cost • Total estimated construction cost, including Right-of-Way for this alternative is $18.28 M.
Project Goals • These improvements meet the project objectives for the Route 531 Terminus that was discussed in Chapter 1 of this document.
Alternative 5 – Route 531/Route 36 Full Diamond Interchange with Route 31 Improvements
This alternative would consist of a new Full Diamond interchange at Route 531 and Route 36. The Route 531 and Route 31 transition would be by means of one alignment providing uninterrupted east-west movement just south of existing Route 31. Route 531 would connect directly to Route 31 and would transition from a four lane expressway to a two lane rural arterial as it passes through the interchange. This alternative would address safety deficiencies and incorporate traffic calming techniques. Refer to Exhibit 3.2.1-4 for the Full Diamond Interchange plan.
3-12 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
This alternative would also eliminate the existing Route 531 / Route 36 traffic signal and the major evening movement that currently turns right onto Route 36, and then left at the proceeding Route 31/Route 36 signalized intersection. As mentioned previously, high directional traffic volumes and storage are the main reasons for back-up at the Route 531 Terminus, which this alternative would mitigate. Route 31 would be enhanced to improve overall safety by providing Traffic calming features as you continue westerly towards Salmon Creek Road as described in Section 3.2.1.1.
The Full Diamond configuration will reduce delay through the terminus by allowing mainline traffic to not be impeded by the traffic signal heading easterly and the right and left turn movements required to continue westerly. It would maintain the Route 31 eastbound and westbound Brockport – Spencerport traffic, via turning movements through the ramps at the Route 531/Route 36 interchange. In addition the interchange would provide uninterrupted east-west movement between Route 531 and Route 31, provide an improved transition and reduce rear end and intersection accidents as a result of eliminating the peak hour traffic queuing. For bicyclists the eastbound ramp would provide an exclusive bicycle left turn lane for bicyclists to turn left from Route 31/Bike Route 5 onto Route 36.
For the westbound Route 531 direction, where speed reduction is most critical, at or near the Route 36 bridge the median width will be narrowed along with a westbound lane drop from 2 lanes to 1 lane with the introduction of traffic features to initiate traffic calming efforts. The new bridge may also incorporate aesthetic treatments to support this effort.
The pavement in the project would generally be reconstructed, while the western segment of Route 31 would receive mostly reconstruction with minor rehabilitation and widening along with minor installation of curbs to facilitate drainage and minimize grading impacts. Alternative 5 would include the installation of an open ditch drainage system and new signing and pavement markings. The proposed scope of work for Alternative 5 would provide geometrically adequate travel lanes for 70 mph and 60 mph design speeds on Route 531 and Route 36 / Route 31 respectively.
Key elements of Alternative 5 include:
Geometry • Improve the Route 531 transition from an expressway to a rural principal arterial, by providing a Full Diamond interchange at Route 36.
• The Route 531 median will be narrowed with pavement markings reducing two lanes to one lane through the interchange;
• Eliminate the existing traffic signal at Route 531 / Route 36 intersection, which has accidents associated with the signals visibility.
Operational • Improve Route 531 mobility, capacity and safety of the expressway transition to Route 31.
Control of Access • Control of access for this alternative will meet the criteria in HDM for Other Freeways.
Right of Way • Route 531 and Route 31 mainline improvements will require ROW acquisitions. The proposed ramp at Washington Street will require an acquisition in Northampton Park to accommodate the Route 531/Route 36 eastbound exit ramp
• It is anticipated that overhead and underground Utility lines within the proposed Route 531 and Route 31 mainline improvements will require relocation
3-13 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.2.1-4 Full Diamond Interchange Alternative 5
3-14 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Environmental • There are 0.75 Acres of wetland impacts.
• There are 1.89 Acres of agricultural district impacts.
• There are 2.05 Acres of prime farmland soil impacts.
• There are no Floodplain impacts.
• There is no significant noise or visual impacts.
Cost • Total estimated construction cost, including Right-of-Way for this alternative is $29.69 M.
Project Goals • These improvements meet the project objectives for the Route 531 Terminus that was discussed in Chapter 1 of this document.
3.2.2 Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative that best meets the project objectives is Alternative 2, the At-Grade Conventional Signalized Intersection. This decision is based on an evaluation of comments received on the ‘Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment (DR/EA)’ and on comments received after the February 5, 2015 Public Hearing.
3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternatives
3.2.3.1. Design Standards
The design criteria for the Route 531 Terminus Improvement Project are based on the following publications: • Chapter 2 and 7 of the New York State Highway Design Manual (HDM) • Section 2 of the NYSDOT Bridge Manual • The 2004 edition of AASHTO, “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” • The 2012 edition of AASHTO, “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities”
This criterion is presented in Exhibits 3.2.3.2 below; when referenced in the source, the minimum, maximum and desirable values have been noted.
3-15 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
3.2.3.2 Critical Design Elements
Exhibit 3.2.3.2 – 1 Critical Design Elements for Route 531 PIN: 4531.07 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & Name: Route 531 – Brockport Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial – Expressway Spencerport Expressway Project Type: Reconstruction & New Design Classification: Other Freeways – Rural Construction HDM 2.7.1.2 % Trucks: 5 Terrain: Level ADT: 25,364 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Access Highway Existing Element Standard 1 Condition Proposed Condition 2 1 Design Speed 70 mph 65 mph posted 70 mph 12 feet 2 Lane Width HDM Section 2.7.1.1 B 12 ft 12 ft 4 feet Left, 10feet Right 4 ft Left 4 ft Left 3 Shoulder Width HDM Section 2.7.1.1 C 10 ft Right 10 ft Right Approach Roadway width but no less than Chapter 8 of 4 Bridge Roadway Width AASHTO’s ‘A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways n/a n/a and Streets, 2004’ 3 % 1.8% - Alt. 2/3 5 Maximum Grade 0.9% HDM Section 2.7.1.1 G, Table 2-2 2.5% - Alt. 5 8345 ft (e=2.5%) – Alt. 2 3 1810 ft @ e = 8.0% 6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.3.1 F, Table 2-2 5860 ft (e=6%) 9600 ft (e=2.2%) – Alt. 3 10300 ft (e=2.1%) – Alt. 5 8% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.1.1 G 6% 8% Max. 8 Stopping Sight Distance 730 ft Minimum (Crest) 730 ft 730 ft 15 ft without rail; Along rail, use larger of 4 ft or actual 9 Horizontal Clearance shoulder width 15 ft Min. 15 ft Min. HDM Section 2.7.1.1 l 16’-0” minimum, 16’-6” Desirable, Highway n/a – Alt. 2/3 10 Vertical Clearance n/a BM Section 2.4 16’-6” – Alt. 5 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Pavement Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.1.1 K 2% 2% 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; (If shoulder drainage is a concern, and superelevation > 12 Rollover 6%, may use 10% for outer 4 ft of shoulder. 4% / 8% 4% / 8% HDM Section 2.7.1.2 L NYSDOT LRFD Specifications AASHTO HL-93 Live Load 13 Structural Capacity and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle n/a n/a HDM Section 2.7.1.2.M & BM Section 2.6.1 Fully controlled 14 Control of Access HDM Section 2.7.1.2 O Full Control Full Control 36 feet minimum 15 Median Width 50 – 100 feet desirable n/a 6 ft HDM Section 2.7.1.1 P Notes: 1. Proposed parameters are the same for all alternatives unless noted otherwise. 2. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of Design Speeds of 70 mph for Route 531 and 60mph for Route 31 and Route 36 is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C of this report for additional information on speed data). 3. For curves flatter than the minimum radius, the radius and superelevation on each horizontal curve shall be correlated with the design speed in accordance with the appropriate e-max table (HDM Table 2-14 for e-max = 8%). 4. The proposed 6 foot raised median is at the signalized intersection approach only and not considered non-standard feature in this situation.
3-16
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
3.2.3.2 Critical Design Elements (Cont.)
Exhibit 3.2.3.2 – 2 Critical Design Elements for Route 31 PIN: 4531.07 NHS (Y/N): Yes – west of Route 36 No – east of Route 36 Route No. & Name: Route 31 – Brockport Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial – Other, west of Spencerport Road Route 36 Urban Minor Arterial, east of Route 36 Project Type: Reconstruction & New Design Classification: Arterial – Rural Construction HDM 2.7.2.1 % Trucks: 5 Terrain: Rolling ADT: 25,317 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Access Highway Existing Proposed Element Standard 1 Condition Condition 2 1 Design Speed 60 mph 55 mph posted 60 mph 12 feet 2 Lane Width HDM Section 2.7.2.1B 12 ft 12 ft 8 ft Minimum 3 Shoulder Width HDM Section 2.7.2.1C 6 – 10 ft 8 ft Wider of existing approach roadway or existing traveled 4 Bridge Roadway Width way plus 4 ft clearance on each side n/a 66 ft. – Alt. 5 BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1 4 % 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.2.1 E, Table 2-5 4% 4% 2320 ft (e=6%) 3 1200 ft @ e = 8.0% 6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.2.1 F, Table 2-5 1225 ft (e=6%) 2300 ft (e=4.6%) 3480 ft (e=3.3%) 8% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.2.1 G 6% 8% Max. 8 Stopping Sight Distance 570 ft Minimum (Crest) 425 ft (HSD) 570 ft 10 ft without rail; Along rail, use larger of 4 ft or actual 9 Horizontal Clearance shoulder width 10 ft 10 ft HDM Section 2.7.2.1 I 16’-0” Min, 16’-6” Desirable, Highway – west of Route 36 n/a – Alt. 2/3 10 Vertical Clearance 14’-0” Min.; 14’-6” Desirable, Highway – east of Route 36 n/a BM Section 2.4 16’- 6” – Alt. 5 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Pavement Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.2.1 K 2% 2% 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; (If shoulder drainage is a concern, and superelevation > 12 Rollover 6%, may use 10% for outer 4 ft of shoulder. 4% / 8% 4% / 8% HDM Section 2.7.2.1 L NYSDOT LRFD Specifications AASHTO HL-93 Live Load n/a – Alt. 2/3 and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle HL-93 & NYSDOT 13 Structural Capacity n/a Design Permit HDM Section 2.7.3.1.M & BM Section 2.6.1 Vehicle – Alt. 5 Pedestrian 14 Complies with HDM Chapter 18 None Sidewalk Accommodation 4 ft minimum w/o left turn; 12 ft minimum w/ left turn 15 Median Width (10’ turn lane w/2’ median separation) n/a 4 ft HDM Section 2.7.2.1.O Notes: 1. Proposed parameters are the same for all alternatives unless noted otherwise. 2. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of Design Speeds of 70 mph for Route 531 and 60mph for Route 31 & Route 36 is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C for additional information on speed data). 3. For curves flatter than the minimum radius, the radius and superelevation on each horizontal curve shall be correlated with the design speed in accordance with the appropriate e-max table (HDM Table 2-14 for e-max = 8%). Bold text indicates a non- standard feature; the series of sweeping horizontal curves introduced for traffic calming are considered non-standard, refer to Appendix E of this report for additional information on Non-Standard Features Justification. 3-17
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
3.2.3.2 Critical Design Elements (Cont.)
Exhibit 3.2.3.2 – 3 Critical Design Elements for Route 36 (north of Route 531) PIN: 4531.07 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & Name: Route 36 – Washington Functional Classification: Urban – Minor Arterial Street Project Type: Reconstruction & New Design Classification: Arterial – Rural Construction HDM 2.7.2.1 % Trucks: 5 Terrain: Rolling ADT: 7,8404 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Access Highway Existing Proposed Element Standard 1 Condition Condition 2 1 Design Speed 40 mph 35 mph posted 40 mph 12 feet Travel Lane, 12 feet Turning Lane 2 Lane Width HDM Section 2.7.2.1 B 12 ft 12 ft 8 ft Minimum 3 Shoulder Width HDM Section 2.7.2.1 C 6 – 8 ft 8 ft Wider of existing approach roadway or existing traveled 4 Bridge Roadway Width way plus 4 ft clearance on each side n/a 52 ft – Alt. 5 BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1 6 % 4.8% - Alt. 2/3 5 Maximum Grade 5 % HDM Section 2.7.2.1 E, Table 2-5 4.5% - Alt. 5 3 444 Ft @ e = 8.0% 6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.2.1 F, Table 2-5 Tangential 965 ft (e=6%) 8% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.2.1 G 6% 8% Max. 8 Stopping Sight Distance 305 ft Minimum (Crest) 490 ft 570 ft 10 ft without rail; Along rail, use larger of 4 ft or actual 9 Horizontal Clearance shoulder width 10 ft 10 ft HDM Section 2.7.2.1 l 16’-0” minimum, 16’-6” Desirable, Highway 10 Vertical Clearance BM Section 2.4 n/a 16’-6” – Alt. 5 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Pavement Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.2.1 K 2% 2% 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; (If shoulder drainage is a concern, and superelevation > 12 Rollover 6%, may use 10% for outer 4 ft of shoulder. 4% / 8% 4% / 8% HDM Section 2.7.2.1 L NYSDOT LRFD Specifications AASHTO HL-93 Live Load n/a – Alt. 2/3 and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle HL-93 & NYSDOT 13 Structural Capacity n/a Design Permit HDM Section 2.7.3.1.M & BM Section 2.6.1 Vehicle – Alt. 5 Pedestrian 5 14 Complies with HDM Chapter 18 None Sidewalk Accommodation Notes: 1. Proposed parameters are the same for all alternatives unless noted otherwise. 2. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 40 mph for Route 36 north of Route 531 is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C of this report for additional information on speed data). 3. For curves flatter than the minimum radius, the radius and superelevation on each horizontal curve shall be correlated with the design speed in accordance with the appropriate e-max table (HDM Table 2-14 for e-max = 8%). 4. Forecasted AADT is projected from ETC+20 Traffic Volume movements. 5. Pedestrian accommodations were determined to provide an access ramp in the southeast corner of Route 36 and Route 31.
3-18
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
3.2.3.2 Critical Design Elements (Cont.)
Exhibit 3.2.3.2 – 4 Critical Design Elements for Route 36 (south of Route 531) PIN: 4531.07 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. & Name: Route 36 – Washington Functional Classification: Urban – Major Collector Street Project Type: Reconstruction & New Design Classification: Collector – Rural Construction HDM 2.7.3.1 % Trucks: 5 Terrain: Rolling ADT: 4,453 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. No designation Existing Proposed Element Standard 1 Condition Condition 2 1 Design Speed 60 mph 55 mph posted 60 mph 12 feet 2 Lane Width HDM Section 2.7.3.1 B 12 ft 12 ft 8 ft Minimum 3 Shoulder Width HDM Section 2.7.3.1 C 2 – 6 ft 8 ft Full Approach roadway width 4 Bridge Roadway Width BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1 n/a n/a 6 % 4.8% - Alt. 2/3 5 Maximum Grade 5 % HDM Section 2.7.3.1 E, Table 2-5 4.5% - Alt. 5 3 1200 Ft @ e = 8.0% 6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.3.1 F, Table 2-5 Tangential 2320 ft (e=6%) 8% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.3.1 G 6% 8% Max. 8 Stopping Sight Distance 570 ft Minimum (Crest) 490 ft 570 ft 10 ft without rail; Along rail, use larger of 4 ft or actual 9 Horizontal Clearance shoulder width 10 ft 10 ft HDM Section 2.7.3.1 l 14’-0” Minimum, Highway; 14’-6” Desirable, Highway 10 Vertical Clearance BM Section 2.4 n/a 14’-6” Min. 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Pavement Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.3.1 K 2% 2% 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; (If shoulder drainage is a concern, and superelevation > 12 Rollover 6%, may use 10% for outer 4 ft of shoulder. 4% / 8% 4% / 8% HDM Section 2.7.3.1 L NYSDOT LRFD Specifications AASHTO HL-93 Live Load 13 Structural Capacity and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle n/a n/a HDM Section 2.7.3.1.M & BM Section 2.6.1 Pedestrian 14 Complies with HDM Chapter 18 None None Accommodation Notes: 1. Proposed parameters are the same for all alternatives unless noted otherwise. 2. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of Design Speeds of 70 mph for Route 531 and 60mph for Route 31 and Route 36 is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C of this report for additional information on speed data). 3. For curves flatter than the minimum radius, the radius and superelevation on each horizontal curve shall be correlated with the design speed in accordance with the appropriate e-max table (HDM Table 2-14 for e-max = 8%).
3-19
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
3.2.3.2 Critical Design Elements (Cont.)
Exhibit 3.2.3.2 – 5 Critical Design Elements for Entrance / Exit Ramps Route 31(west of Rt 36) / Route 531(east of Rt 36) Full Diamond Interchange – Alternative 5 Only PIN: 4531.07 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & Name: Direct Connection Ramps Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial – Expressway E-NS, NS-E, W-NS, NS-W Project Type: Reconstruction & New Design Classification: Other Freeways – Rural Construction HDM 2.7.1.2 % Trucks: 5 Terrain: Rolling ADT: Varies per ramp Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Access Highway Existing Element Standard Proposed Condition Condition 1 Design Speed 50 mph1 50 mph 50 mph Ramp Min. Width EB Exit (E-NS) 2 15’ 1-lane 14 ft – one lane ramp 2 Lane Width EB Entrance (NS-E) 14 ft – one lane ramp WB Exit (W-NS) 12 ft – two lane ramp 12’ 2-lane 12’ – two lane ramp WB Entrance(NS-W) 3’ Left, 8’ Right (Exh. 2-10, note 2) 3 ft Left 3 ft Left 3 Shoulder Width HDM Section 2.7.1.1 C. 6 ft Right 8 ft Right Match Approach section 4 Bridge Roadway Width HDM 2.7.5.2 D. & BM 2.3.1, Table 2-1 n/a n/a 5 % 5 % 5 Maximum Grade 3.5% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E. (Actual 4.5%) Ramp EB Exit (E-NS) E-NS 3240’/2300’ (e=4.5%) 758 ft minimum @ e = 8.0% EB 5650 ft 6 Horizontal Curvature EB Entrance (N-SE) NS-E 5700’/1910’ (e=5.3%) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F. (e= 2.0 to 3.0%) WB Exit (W-NS) W-NS 5729’/2865’ (e=3.9%) WB Entrance (NS-W) NS-W 4170’/2106’ (e=4.9%) 8% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate HDM 2.7.5.2.G 2% 8% Max. 425 ft Minimum (Crest) 8 Stopping Sight Distance HDM 2.7.5.2 H. 570 ft 425 ft Rt. Shoulder width not < 6 ft; Lt = 3 ft. 4 ft Left Rt. Shoulder not < 6 ft. 9 Horizontal Clearance HDM Section 2.7.5.2 I. 8 ft Right Lt. Shoulder = 3 ft. 16’-0” minimum, 16’-6” Desirable, Highway 10 Vertical Clearance BM Section 2.4 n/a n/a 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Pavement Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K. Varies 2 - 3% 2% 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; 12 Rollover HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L. 4% / 8% 4% / 8% NYSDOT LRFD Specifications AASHTO HL-93 Live Load 13 Structural Capacity and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle n/a n/a HDM Section 2.7.5.2.M. & BM Section 2.6.1 Fully controlled 14 Control of Access HDM Section 2.7.5.2 O. Full Control Full Control Pedestrian 15 Complies with HDM Chapter 18 None None Accommodation Notes: 1. Design Speed based on HDM 2.7.5.2 A. – Direct Connection Ramps – 50 mph preferred. 2. Travel lane width based HDM 2.7.5.2 B. – Exhibit 2-9b, Case II, One-Lane, One-way Operation with provision for passing a stalled vehicle.
3-20
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters Exhibit 3.2.3.3 – 1 Other Design Parameters Highway or Feature Element Standard Criteria Existing Condition Proposed Condition Level of Service LOS D Minimum, Route 531 Route 531 (for non – interstate LOS C Desirable C C (ETC) projects) HDM Section 5.2.2. D (ETC+20) Route 531 – 45’ to 90’ Route 531 – 30’ Clear Zone1 HDM Section 10.2.1 Route 31 – 17.5’ to 35’ Route 31 – 30’ Route 36 – 18’ Route 36 – 30’
AASHTO, 2004 800’ (V=60) Acceleration lane 280’ Chapter 10 1230’ (V=70)
AASHTO, 2004 405’ (V=60) Deceleration lane n/a Chapter 10 490’ (V=70)
1. The Clear Zone is the Recommended Basic Recovery Width in feet from travel lane based on Design Speed and Design AADT.
Exhibit 3.2.3.3 – 2 Other Design Parameter: Design Vehicle Location Design Vehicle Vehicle Accommodated Route 531 (Qualifying and access WB-67 WB-67 highway) Route 36 WB-67 WB-67 Route 31 WB-67 WB-67 Former Route 31 Cul-de-Sac1, 2 SU SU Side Streets1 SU SU 1. An SU design vehicle was used on side streets to accommodate school bus & snow plow truck turning movements. 2. The Town of Ogden requires a 50’ Radius Cul-de-Sac to accommodate snow plow truck turn movements.
3.3. Engineering Considerations
3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance
3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System
The project alternatives changed only one (1) functional classification to the highway system. Route 531 will remain Urban Principal Arterial – Expressway and Route 36 south of Route 531 will remain Urban Major – Collector. Route 31 west of Route 36 will remain Urban Principal Arterial – Other and Route 31 east of Route 36 will remain Urban Minor Arterial. Route 36 north of Route 531, will be re-designated to an Urban Major Arterial.
The National Highway System (NHS) designations will remain the same for all highway segments under all alternatives.
3.3.1.2. Control of Access
Full control of access will be provided along Route 531 and will change from ‘with access’ to ‘without access’ along the north side of Route 31 from Gallup Road to 300 ft east of Salmon Creek, near the
3-21
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
proposed cul-de-sac area, for all feasible alternatives. The purpose of without access along Route 31 is to avoid driveway conflicts within the high speed transition segment from the Route 531 “expressway” to the Route 31 “arterial” roadway. The project will also remove six (6) existing residential driveways along the north side of Route 31 and relocate one (1) existing residential driveway along the east side of Route 36, north of Route 531. The remainder of the project corridor will remain as Right of Way with access along Route 31, between Sta. 10+00 to Sta. 38+50(Lt/Rt), Sta. 3+00 to Sta.10+00(Rt), Sta. 3+00 to Sta.12+00(Lt), Sta. 20+00 to Sta.29+00(Lt/Rt) and along Route 36.
3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices
3.3.1.3.1 Traffic Signals
The signalized intersection at Route 531/Route 36 would be removed and replaced with a conventional four-leg signalized intersection or a signalized modified superstreet crossover for Alternatives 2 and 3, with pedestrian countdown timers at pedestrian crossings. Alternative 5 would remove and replace the existing signalized intersection with a grade separated interchange. No additional traffic signals are proposed and the existing Route 31/Route 36 signal will be removed as it is no longer warranted with the reduced traffic volumes at this intersection.
3.3.1.3.2 Signs
New signs will be installed for the two (2) Route 531 at-grade alternatives that would include two-way stop control at the Route 31/Route 36 intersection with stop signs on Route 31/former Route 31 with no stop control on Route 36. In addition, there would be stop controlled ramps for the grade separated interchange. Curve warning and speed advisory signs will evaluated after construction has been completed and may be added for the proposed non-standard curvature. Proposed Bike Route 5 signs and new signs will be installed where required to conform to the standards set forth by the National Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the New York State Supplement to the National MUTCD. All other existing signs will be replaced within the project limits.
3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Application of IT’S in the corridor to detect and manage congestion and incidents was evaluated. Due to the high traffic volumes, corridor friction and queuing, and number of accident occurrences, the use of ITS tools would be beneficial. The installation of a Variable Message Sign (VMS) to provide advanced notice of “atypical” conditions in the corridor would allow drivers to possibly divert to parallel routes such as Route 104 to the north or Colby Street to the south.
VMS signs are very effective when used to report non-recurring conditions and often have a natural calming effect when used as drivers tend to slow down to read the message. Installing a VMS sign east of the Route 259 (Union Street) interchange would ensure adequate advance warning for traffic to exit and seek alternative routes. Incident monitoring would be done manually.
Ultimately, detection along the entire Route 31 corridor (to Brockport) including cameras at the signalized intersections (Route 36, Owens Road, Walmart, Route 19 intersections), as well as Variable Message Signs (VMS), would be desired and will be considered in the future, but not as part of this project. At a minimum, communication conduit will be considered for installation and possible future use.
There will be no Traffic related mobility features as part of this project.
3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay
3.3.1.5.1 Proposed Speed Limit - The posted speed limit within the project limits will be 65 mph along Route 531 up to the new intersection and/or interchange with Route 36 and the existing posted speed
3-22
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
limit of 55 mph would be retained along Route 31 west of Route 36 and along Route 36 south of Route 531.
It is anticipated that the proposed traffic calming improvements through the terminus area and along Route 31 will provide enough physical geometric alterations to naturally reduce the operating speed on Route 31, west of Route 36.
3.3.1.5.2 Travel Time Estimates - The travel time through the revised terminus will be reduced and significantly less than under existing conditions with the new at-grade intersections and/or the grade separated interchange. Through traffic will no longer experience the existing intersection delays at both the Route 531/Route 36 and Route 31/Route 36 intersections. The delays will generally be reduced for through traffic and greatly reduced for local traffic, creating an increase in capacity within the project study area. Delays for each alternative are shown in Exhibit 3.3.1.7-2.
3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes
Under Alternative 2, realigning existing Route 31 with the Route 531 terminus creates localized east-west traffic pattern changes at the intersection with Route 36; however, the overall traffic patterns are anticipated to remain similar to the existing conditions under this alternative. Refer to Exhibits 3.3.1.6-1 for the updated design year traffic flow diagram.
Similarly, Alternative 3 realigns existing Route 31 with the Route 531 terminus creating localized east- west traffic pattern changes at the intersection with Route 36; however, the overall traffic patterns are anticipated to remain similar to the existing conditions under this alternative. Unique to this at-grade alternative, is the Route 36 north-south movements will utilize the Route 531 corridor and the proposed median crossovers (U-turns) as opposed to conventional intersection turn movements. Refer to Exhibits 3.3.1.6-2 for the updated design year traffic flow diagram.
Alternative 5 - With the improved interchange configuration, travel patterns at the terminus will differ from existing conditions; however, no anticipated changes in overall traffic volumes are expected along the project limits under this alternative. Refer to Exhibits 3.3.1.6-3 for the updated design year traffic flow diagram.
There is one exception common to all alternatives. The exception is westbound traffic avoiding the backup at the Route 531 terminus during the evening peak hour. It is anticipated that a portion of the traffic currently avoiding the Route 531 terminus by exiting at Route 259 and utilizing Route 31 to Route 36 will now remain on Route 531. In addition, a portion of the traffic currently utilizing Colby Road to travel west from the Route 531 terminus will remain on the Route 531 expressway. These volumes are minor in relation to the overall traffic system, which amount to less than 1 to 200 vph.
3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility
3.3.1.7.1 At Project Completion & Design Year
The project area was analyzed using methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. HCS+ Version 5.5 and Synchro 7 software was used to analyze the mainline and intersection conditions for the Null and Alternative 5 (Full Diamond Interchange) future build conditions. VISSIM 5.3 was utilized to analyze Alternative 2 (Conventional Intersection) and Alternative 3 (Signalized Superstreet) in order to provide more accurate performance results for the complex intersections, which could not be obtained by utilizing Synchro 7.
The levels of service for the highway sections and the alternatives are shown in Exhibits 3.3.1.7-1 and 3.3.1.7-2. Based on the results of the capacity analysis, the Null alternative would result in multiple failing movements (LOS E or worse) in both the AM and PM peak hours in the 2034 Build condition. The HCM
3-23
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
defines LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections as a function of the average vehicle control delay. LOS may be calculated per movement or per approach for any intersection configuration, but LOS
Exhibit 3.3.1.6 – 1 Alternative 2 – Conventional Signalized Intersection (ETC+20) Traffic Volume Flow Diagram
3-24 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.3.1.6 – 2 Alternative 3 – Signalized Superstreet (ETC+20) Traffic Volume Flow Diagram
Exhibit 3.3.1.6 – 3 Alternative 5 – Full Diamond Interchange (ETC+30) Traffic Volume Flow Diagram
3-25 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
for the intersection as a whole is only defined for signalized and all-way stop configurations. There is a slight difference in LOS for signalized and stop controlled intersections as noted below.
Level of Service Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection LOS (sec) (sec) A <10 <10 B 10 – 20 10 – 15 C 20 – 35 15 – 25 D 35 – 55 25 – 35 E 55 - 80 35 – 50 F >80 >50
Alternative 2 would extend Route 531 through the current terminus at Route 36 and connect directly to Route 31. This configuration would reduce queuing and delay in both peak hours by converting the existing series of right and left turns to a single through movement. A traffic signal is proposed at the intersection of Route 531 and Route 36; however, vehicles would now be able to avoid the signalized intersection of Route 36 and Route 31. This alternative results in a substantial operational improvement over the Null condition. Based on the capacity analysis results for Alternative 2, all movements at the intersection of Route 531 and Route 36, and the intersection of Route 36 and Route 31, would operate at LOS D or better for each movement in the 2034 Build condition, overall the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B. In addition, the maximum westbound queue during the PM peak hour is anticipated to be 665 feet, which represents a significant reduction over the Null condition of 2,640 to 3,960 feet (½ to ¾ mile). The existing segment of Route 31 west of Route 36 would terminate in a cul-de-sac in Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. Therefore, vehicles that are traveling along westbound Route 31 would have to turn left onto Route 36, and then right onto Route 531. However, given that the majority of vehicles wishing to travel west on Route 31 currently utilize Route 531, the impact of the cul-de-sac is anticipated to be minimal. In addition, the signal at the intersection of Route 531 and Route 36 would result in platooning of vehicles in advance of the lane drop. Delays in the area of the lane-drop are anticipated to be slightly higher than in a free-flow condition (Alternative 5) due to the platooning. However, based on the results of the VISSIM simulation model, the average PM peak hour platoon would extend only approximately 600 feet from the merge point, and would clear between signal cycles.
Alternative 3 builds upon Alternative 2 by providing the direct link from Route 531 to Route 31, and introducing a superstreet with a median crossover configuration at the intersection of Route 531 and Route 36. The superstreet concept is designed to reduce the number of phases at a signalized intersection, thereby reducing stopped delay. If the time a vehicle remains stopped is reduced, then traffic "flow," or progression, is improved. The superstreet intersection is better able to manage high vehicle volumes on major street approaches within the existing roadway geometry. This is ideally suited for locations where there are high through volumes, such as Route 531, with substantially lower cross street volumes, such as Route 36. In effect, it optimizes the use of an existing roadway system and reduces both delay and travel time through intersections.
The superstreet concept is based upon the relationship between the number of signal phases and the amount of available green for each phase. The fewer the number of phases and traffic movements (left, through and right) that are assigned "green time" simultaneously, the more green time that can be assigned to a given phase. Exhibit 3.3.1.7-3 below compares the percent of green time at a signalized superstreet intersection and a signalized conventional intersection. Due to the lower number of phases, additional green time can be assigned to the major roadway, which increases the capacity, while reducing delay motorists would experience.
3-26
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.3.1.7-1 Percent Green Time at Superstreet vs. Conventional Traffic Signal In the case of the intersection of Route 531 and Route 36, the number of signal phases would be reduced from four, in Alternative 2, to two in Alternative 3, allowing a greater amount of green time to be assigned to the Route 531 through movements. Based on the results of the capacity analysis, all movements at the intersections of Route 531 and Route 36, and Route 31 and Route 36 would operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours in the 2034 Build Condition, overall the intersection is expected to operate at a high LOS B. In addition, due to the additional green time associated with the superstreet intersection, the Route 531 westbound maximum queue in the PM peak hour is reduced from 665 feet in Alternative 2, to 297 in Alternative 3. Furthermore, the increased green time along Route 531 results in smaller platoons than Alternative 2, improving the operation of the westbound lane drop during the PM peak hour.
The primary disadvantage to the superstreet concept is that vehicles that desire to turn left or go straight on the minor street, Route 36 are directed to a U-turn roughly 600 feet away, and are then channeled back toward the intersection to complete their movement. Therefore, superstreet concepts work best when the majority of a side street traffic flow is destined for the major street. This is the case at the intersection of Route 36 and Route 531, where the through volume along Route 36 is relatively light in comparison to the turn movements.
Alternative 5 consists of the replacement of the signalized intersection at the Route 531 terminus with a grade separated full diamond interchange. The interchange would eliminate the current capacity constraints at the terminus, and would also increase capacity for Route 531 over the signalized intersection options in Alternatives 2 and 3. No delays would be experienced on Route 531 through the new interchange at project completion and in the future design year.
3-27
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.3.1.7-1 Highway Design Year Segment Level of Service Route 531 – East of Route 36 Morning LOS Evening LOS YEAR Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound ETC (2014) B A A B ETC+20 (2034) B A A B ETC+30 (2044) B A A B
Exhibit 3.3.1.7-2 Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec) ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 A LTERNATIVE 5 ETC+20 - Null Condition ETC+20 – Conventional ETC+20 – Signalized ETC+30 – Full Diamond (2034) Intersection (2034) Superstreet (2034) (2044) Intersection Approach AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) EB LT 25.0 C 43.2 D 25.6 C 23.2 C EB Thru- 125.3 F 150.3 F 21.4 C 15.0 B 18.3 B 11.0 B RT EB RT 10.5 B 6.6 A 27.2 C 7.1 A WB LT 35.5 D 81.3 F 21.1 C 20.1 C 24.1 C 22.8 C WB Thru 20.1 C 20.5 C 11.3 B 13.8 B Route 531 WB RT 6.4 A 77.8 E 3.7 A 6.7 A 9.4 A 12.7 B @ NB - LT 25.8 C 30.8 C Route 36 NB Thru - 132.2 F 159.2 F 18.4 B 31.5 C RT NB RT 14.5 B 6.3 A 27.6 C 21.7 C SB LT 23.7 C 19.9 B 26.6 C 23.0 C SB Thru 46.9 D 21.4 C 23.5 C 19.7 B SB RT 8.1 A 11.7 B 48.3 D 31.7 C Overall 85.6 F 103.3 F 19.9 B 19.0 B 22.0 C 16.2 B
3-28
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.3.1.7-2 (Cont.) Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec)
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 5 ETC+20 - Null Condition ETC+20 – Conventional ETC+20 – Signalized ETC+30 – Full Diamond (2034) Intersection (2034) Superstreet (2034) (2044) Intersection Approach AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) EB LT 21.5 C 67.2 E 21.2 C 35.7 D 9.8 A 15.7 B 23.0 C 24.0 C EB Thru- 27.6 C 43.8 D 30.1 C 26.5 C 9.6 A 14.2 B 22.7 C 24.3 C RT WB LT 22.9 C 36.6 D 37.3 D 36.0 D 18.2 B 15.7 B 18.9 B 22.5 C WB Thru- 31.0 C 137.9 F 22.2 C 40.4 D 12.2 B 12.0 B 7.1 A 5.1 A Route 31 @ RT Route 36 NB LT 64.6 E 107.4 F 8.2 A 6.6 A 16.8 B 12.6 B 9.3 A 8.9 A (Traffic NB Thru- Signal) 4.6 A 5.6 A 8.2 A 8.8 A 11.0 B 13.8 B 4.5 A 11.4 B RT SB LT 22.4 C 42.7 D 9.0 A 12.4 B 9.4 A 11.7 B 8.9 A 8.6 A SB Thru- 32.7 C 52.5 D 7.4 A 7.6 A 13.9 B 10.4 B 9.8 A 9.0 A RT
Overall 44.8 D 91.9 F 16.4 B 16.2 B 12.4 B 12.5 B 10.9 B 14.2 B EB LT- 13.1 b 13.9 b 13.1 b 13.9 b 13.2 b 13.9 b Thru-RT WB LT- 23.0 c 38.1 e* 23.0 c 38.1 e* 23.2 c 38.8 e* Thru-RT Route 31 @ NB LT - 1.1 a 0.2 a 1.1 a 0.2 a 1.2 a 0.2 a Route 36 Th ru (Stop Controlled) NB RT 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a SB LT- 0.9 a 0.9 a 0.9 a 0.9 a 0.9 a 0.9 a Thru-RT
Overall 7.1 a 12.4 b 7.1 a 12.4 b 7.2 a 12.6 b WB LT 16.4 c 28.4 e*
Route 531 WB Thru- 10.0 b 11.6 b WB Ramps RT @ NB LT 8.6 a 8.5 a Route 36 (Stop NB Thru 0.0 a 0.0 a Controlled) SB Thru- 0.0 a 0.0 a RT EB LT 37.8 e* 24.4 d
Route 531 EB Thru- 8.9 a 9.9 b EB Ramps RT @ NB Thru - 0.0 a 0.0 a Route 36 RT (Stop SB LT 8.5 a 7.8 a Controlled) SB Thru 0.0 a 0.0 a
* Refer to Section 3.3.1.7.1 for an explanation and comparison of an unsignalized and signalized Level of Service value.
The transition from Route 531 to Route 31 will be at or near capacity as the traffic merges from the 4-lane expressway section to the 2-lane highway section. Under this alternative the proposed eastbound off ramp left turn movement would be near capacity (Level of Service ‘E’) at the unsignalized intersection; however the delay of 37.8 seconds for this movement would only create a minor queuing of 5-6 vehicles
3-29
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
(max) during the morning peak hour. The unsignalized Level of Service ‘E’ is comparable to signalized level of service ‘D’ ranging in the 35 – 55 second delay, and is considered acceptable.
3.3.1.7.2 – Work Zone Safety & Mobility
A. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan
Two construction methods, Staged construction and an Off-site detour were considered for the Route 531 feasible alternatives. Due to available State highways and the isolated project work area it was decided to utilize an off-site detour during the reconstruction of the Terminus area. Refer to Appendix A of this report for the proposed off-site detour location.
Even with an off-site detour, staged construction would still be required on Route 31 west of Route 36, at the Cul-De-Sac, for the proposed Salmon Creek culvert widening or bridge replacement, to complete the Route 531 connection to Route 31 and along Route 36. Two-way traffic would be maintained at all times during the construction of these roadway segments. Even though on-site staged construction is proposed, it is anticipated that intermittent short-term detours may be used, which will be determined during Final Design.
An off-site detour would involve closing the Route 531 expressway at the Route 259 interchange, 2.5 miles to the east. Traffic would exit and enter the Route 259 interchange and utilize a state road detour: Route 259 (Union Street) and Route 31 to travel to and from the existing Route 531 terminus area. This would add approximately 3 minutes to the traveling public’s trip duration to proceed to the Route 31/Route 36 intersection. The detour may require roadway and signal timing adjustments to accommodate additional traffic volumes at the following traffic signals:
• Route 531/Route 259 (Union Street) Entrance/Exit Ramps (2 traffic signals) • Route 259/Route 31 • Route 31/Route 36 (Washington Street)
It can be expected that some traffic will divert to alternative routes as a result of additional congestion at the intersections of Route 531/Route 259 and Route 259/Route 31 due to the significant increase in traffic that would now detour through these intersections.
Currently the Route 531/Route 36 AM traffic consists of 1,561 eastbound vehicles either as through or left turn movements that would be required to turn right from Route 31 onto Route 259 and then left from Route 259 onto the Route 531 eastbound on ramp. This volume combined with the existing volume of left turning traffic on southbound Route 259 (560 vehicles) would result in over 2,121 vehicles attempting to make this left turn onto the eastbound ramp. This volume of traffic would far exceed the capacity of this turning movement, as well as the single lane ramp and as such would be expected to back up through the Route 259/Route 31 intersection.
In the evening 681 vehicles currently turn right at the Route 531/Route 259 westbound ramp. These vehicles would be combined with 1,163 vehicles being detoured from the Route 531 terminus for a total of 1,844 right turning vehicles. Then the 1,163 detoured vehicles would turn left to travel westbound on Route 31 in combination with the 292 that currently make that movement at the Route 259/Route 31 intersection. In total, 1,455 vehicles would attempt to make this left turn and it is anticipated that this volume of vehicles would back up onto the Route 531 westbound off ramp.
Given the anticipated congestion at these intersections, it would be expected that many drivers will divert to alternative routes. The most likely group would be 30% of the traffic using Route 531 traveling to or from the area north and west of the Route 104/Route 260 intersection. Some of this traffic may continue to use Route 104 to reach alternative interchanges. It would also be expected that Colby Street would experience a potentially increase in traffic. The diverted traffic may also have an impact on traffic operations at other intersections outside the study area. 3-30
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
The detour route will be coordinated with local municipalities and officials during final design. Routes for emergency vehicles will be maintained and open during construction and the response time for emergency vehicles is not anticipated to increase by more than 5 minutes.
The details for the work zone traffic control will be prepared and evaluated during final design.
B. Special Provisions Due to the close proximity of residential homes and the ability to maintain traffic with acceptable delays during daylight hours, night time construction will not be utilized with the exception of overhead steel erection and or overhead signs. The use of time related provisions will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffic control will be coordinated with local officials and residents.
C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010) This project has been determined to be a significant project under 23 CFR 630.1010.
A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of:
• A Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan • A Transportation Operations (TO) component • A Public Information component (PI)
3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis
A detailed evaluation of the existing accident history is provided in section 2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis. The terminus design alternatives will significantly alter the Route 531 alignment and interchange area. Each alternative has distinctive opportunities to address current safety conditions.
With any of the feasible terminus alternatives there is an inherent safety condition that was evaluated. The Conventional Intersection, the Superstreet and the Full Diamond Interchange will address safety needs at the current expressway terminus to different degrees; however, the new terminus alternatives will allow a higher volume of traffic to proceed through the terminus area with reduced delay. While a transition will occur from the 65mph speed on the expressway to the 55mph speed on Route 31, other considerations to slow traffic down through this transition are identified.
As part of a 2011 DOT Sign Contract two (2) sets, for a total of four (4) signs were installed along Route 531 near the terminus. ‘Expressway Ends 1 Mile’, ‘Expressway Ends ½ Mile’ and revising the Washington Street Exit sign to ‘Washington Street – Next Intersection – Be Prepared to Stop’ signs were installed along the last 1 mile segment of Route 531 westbound. These signs will most likely be relocated as required for this project.
Traffic calming treatments should consist of direct messages (i.e., warning signs “expressway ends”) and indirect messages to the driver (medians, channelized islands, etc.). There are multiple features incorporated in the three feasible alternatives along the new corridor from the terminus location at Route 36 to west of Salmon Creek Road. These traffic calming features are incorporated to address individual intersection safety and attempt to calm traffic through the area:
• Advance warning signs stating “end of expressway”; and the posted speed limit change will occur at the terminus. This allows more flexible design criteria (shoulder width, median width, pedestrian and bicycle treatments, etc.) to be used at the terminus. • Signal: In order to eliminate confusion between the traffic signals at Route 36/531 and Route 36/31, we are proposing to remove the signal at Route 36/31 for all feasible alternatives.
3-31
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
• Center median from Route 36 to Gallup Road: a six (6) foot mountable curb median will be installed along Route 31 up to the Gallup Road intersection (variations of these limits exist with each terminus alternative). This will separate directional traffic and minimize friction from turning vehicles. In addition, the median will reduce/eliminate head on type accidents in this segment. • Hubbell Road Intersection – this intersection would remain a full access intersection but will incorporate a channelized island for the left turn movements. The modification includes a greater separation of directional traffic to provide a curvilinear effect for through traffic. Turning vehicles will have designated lanes to remove them from the traffic stream. This may reduce left turn, rear end, and sideswipe accident types that have occurred at this intersection. • Gallup Road Intersection – the intersection would be realigned in a southerly direction to improve sight distance concerns for southbound exiting vehicles and through traffic. A left turn lane is provided for eastbound left turns onto Gallup Road. An acceleration lane for exiting left turns, eventually heading eastbound, will also be available. These turning and acceleration lanes will improve accessibility and safety to and from the side street, by minimizing/eliminating rear-end, right angle and sideswipe type accidents occurring at this intersection. • A continuous two-way left turn lane (CTWLTL) will be provided between Gallup Road and Salmon Creek to facilitate access to residential properties in this section. A wide 16 foot center turn lane will allow turning traffic to fully maneuver into the center turn lane, considering the high volume of traffic. This refuge area will improve accessibility and safety to and from the north side residences. • Salmon Creek Road Intersection –The center two-way left turn lane will end as a dedicated left turn lane westbound. Again, removing turning vehicles from the through traffic stream will minimize/eliminate rear end accidents occurring at this intersection.
In addition, each of the feasible alternatives will have positive safety effects at the intersection of Route 31 and Route 36. The significant reduction in volumes from 2,200 to 950 vehicles per hour during the evening peak, for example, will substantially improve intersection operations and eliminate approximately 70% of the accidents occurring at this intersection. The current prevalent accident types include rear-end, left turn, and right angle accidents on the northbound approach between Route 31 and the Route 531 terminus. Eliminating significant volume at this intersection will also positively affect pedestrian and bicycle traffic along this segment of Route 31.
The following identifies and compares the various feasible alternatives and their effects on safety within the terminus area.
Alternative 2 – At-Grade Signalized Conventional Intersection – Converting the Route 531 terminus to a full directional four-leg signalized intersection will eliminate the need for the westbound through traffic to make a right turn onto Route 36 followed by a left turn onto Route 31. The queuing and congestion (resulting in accidents) will be greatly reduced, especially at the Route 31 and Route 36 intersection as discussed above.
Traffic signals reduce certain types of accidents and increase others such as left turn, rear end and right angle. In this case, a notable amount of the rear end accidents occurring on the westbound approach are a result of the unexpected queuing and congestion from vehicles making a right turn towards the Route 31 and Route 36 intersection. These types of accidents will be notably reduced. So while notable capacity and safety improvements will result with this alternative, additional safety considerations are needed. The following additional safety features are proposed as part of this alternative:
• Signal: consideration of optical signals with back plates. This treatment will provide greater visibility of the traffic signal heads on all four approaches. • Median: would transition from a 38 feet grass median east of the terminus to a 6 feet raised median through the Route 36 intersection. Median width is minimized through the intersection to provide a visual queue that conditions have changed. This is a proactive traffic calming treatment. • Raised Islands: the Route 36 approaches would have raised islands to provide channelization and traffic calming for north and southbound traffic.
3-32
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
• Lane Drop: the westbound lane drop will occur approximately 1,100 to 1,500 feet west of Route 36. This is necessary to ensure effective operations at the traffic signal such as the equitable use of the two westbound through travel lanes. • For pedestrians, the crossing distances for all legs of the conventional signalized intersection will be longer as compared to the existing intersection. To aid and protect pedestrians crossing the intersection, raised medians and raised islands would provide refuge for pedestrians who begin crossing too late or are only capable of walking exceptionally slow. Pedestrian push buttons, countdown timers and crosswalks will be provided at the new terminus. Pedestrian countdown timers signal the number of seconds remaining during the pedestrian crossing phase at signalized intersections. The device is intended to provide information to crossing pedestrians by helping them judge whether there is sufficient time to cross. • Route 36 profile (south of the interchange) was evaluated to address sight distance at the terminus area and north to the Route 31 intersection. The proposed road profile will be lowered to provide the required stopping sight distance along Route 36, which may help reduce the northbound rear end accidents occurring at this location. Clearing and trimming trees and bushes is anticipated on the southwest corner to improve visibility, which may reduce right angle accidents occurring at this location.
Exhibit 3.3.1.8-1 Conventional Intersection Conflict Points
Alternative 3 – At-Grade Signalized Superstreet Median Crossover – Superstreets reduce the risk of crashes and specifically the risk of severe crashes such as left turn collisions and right angle type accidents. Since the superstreet concept eliminates the two movements that are statistically considered a higher risk for serious injury – side street throughs and lefts – the likelihood of severe and fatal incidents at the superstreet intersection are therefore reduced. For the same reasons, pedestrians also benefit from the safety features of superstreets. Due to the simplification of traffic flow and the reduction of potential conflicts with turning vehicles, pedestrians face fewer conflicts or threats to their safety when crossing at superstreet intersections.
3-33
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Conflict points provide a means to compare the relative safety for vehicles of a four-leg signalized intersection to an alternative intersection treatment such as the superstreet median crossover. The illustration shows all the potential points where vehicles moving in conflicting directions may intersect, or crash at a conventional four-way intersection. These “conflict points” are represented by the green, red and white circles that also indicate crash type. As depicted above, there are 32 potential conflict points for the conventional intersection. Collisions between vehicles traveling perpendicular to one another statistically result in the most severe injuries as drivers and/or passengers receive the brunt of impact from the side where they are the least protected.
Below is the same illustration for the superstreet with all the potential conflict points identified. As depicted, there is a dramatic reduction in the number of conflict points of approximately 50 percent. This decrease translates to a significant reduction in risk to motorists. The prevalent accident types that will be eliminated are the right angle accidents (6) predominantly occurring between eastbound and northbound vehicles. A notable reduction in rear end accidents in the eastbound and westbound approaches are also anticipated as the superstreet signal operations will provide more green time to the Route 531 approaches reducing queues.
For north and southbound pedestrians on Route 36, this is a three stage crossing where the crossing distance of the signalized superstreet intersection would be longer and may require longer wait times as compared to the existing intersection. Based on past experience, longer crossing distances and longer wait times can result in risky pedestrian behavior. Some pedestrians may be inclined to bypass part of or the entire marked pedestrian route and cross under conditions without a signal control, thereby increasing the potential for pedestrian accidents.
The following additional safety features are proposed as part of this alternative:
• Signal: consideration of optical signals with back plates. This treatment will provide greater visibility of the traffic signal heads on all four approaches.
Exhibit 3.3.1.8-2 Superstreet Conflict Points
• Median: The superstreet design will require the center median to be 42 feet wide to accommodate the U-turn maneuver. This is 4 feet wider than the current expressway grass median of 38 feet. The median width, including interior lane width for this alternative may continue to encourage the high speed of traffic through the terminus area. Other geometric features could be considered to off-set this width.
3-34
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
• Lane Drop: the westbound lane drop will occur approximately 1,100 to 1,500 feet west of the traffic signal at Route 36. This is necessary to ensure effective operations of the superstreet crossover turn around. • Route 36 profile (south of the interchange) was evaluated to address sight distance at the terminus area and north to the Route 31 intersection. The proposed road profile will be lowered to provide the required stopping sight distance along Route 36, which may help reduce right angle accidents occurring at this location. This profile adjustment will reduce the northbound rear end and right angle accidents occurring at this location. Clearing and trimming trees and bushes is also anticipated on the southwest corner to improve visibility, which may help reduce right angle accidents occurring at this location. • For north and southbound pedestrians on Route 36, a raised island in the middle of the intersection will provide refuge when crossing Route 531. This is a three stage crossing where pedestrians should use the push buttons, countdown timers and crosswalks provided at the new terminus. Pedestrian countdown timers signal the number of seconds remaining during the pedestrian crossing phase at signalized intersections. The device is intended to provide information to crossing pedestrians by helping them judge whether there is sufficient time to cross.
Alternative 5 – Full Diamond Interchange – Converting the Route 531 terminus to a full diamond interchange will address the accident patterns along Route 531, Route 36 and at the Route 36/Route 31 intersection. Similar to Alternative 2 and 3, this option eliminates the need for the westbound through traffic to make a right turn onto Route 36 followed by a left turn onto Route 31. By far, this alternative will eliminate (versus reduce) various types of accidents including rear-end (30) and right angle (6) accidents. Some accidents may occur at the new ramp intersections with Route 36; however, eliminating the rear end and right angle accidents at higher speeds is significant. In addition, this alternative provides the opportunity to start the traffic calming treatments earlier as compared to the other alternatives.
The following additional safety features are proposed as part of this alternative:
• Route 36 overpass design will act as a traffic calming measure; Route 36 interchange will signify the “end of expressway” and the posted speed limit change will occur at this location. • Aesthetic bridge treatments will be considered including: steel vs. concrete; Texas rail; false arch look; diverse center pier design; some type of aesthetic concrete abutment/wing wall treatment (i.e. using form liners). This will also be different from standard expressway bridges. • Lane Drop: Route 531 westbound lane drop may occur shortly after the Route 36 off-ramp, east of and through the underpass. The lane drop will assist in the transition to the lower speed limit. • Route 36 overpass design significantly reduces bicycle/pedestrian/vehicle conflicts with mainline Route 531 traffic; this also decreases the volume of vehicles on Route 36 which improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Route 36 (south of the interchange) profile was evaluated to address sight distance at the terminus area and north to the Route 31 intersection. Raising the Route 36 profile over Route 531 will improve sight distance and anticipated tree and shrub removal will improve intersection sight distance. • The new interchange intersections with Route 36 will be stop sign controlled. This will eliminate the existing traffic signal and provide for improved operations and sight distance to the Route 31 intersection.
Route 531 Terminus – Accident History Breakdown
Updated crash investigations were performed to reflect the latest available 3 years of data (November 1, 2009 to October 31, 2012) for the same project study area. Similar patterns were experienced, which confirms the accident data from 2005 to 2007 study. Two project segments were evaluated; the first segment was from the western project limits to Hubbell Road, with the design of this section common to the three feasible alternatives and similar crash reductions expected. The other segment was east of Hubbell Road and was evaluated for each of the three feasible alternatives. There were 42 crashes from the western project limits to Hubbell Road and 136 crashes east of Hubbell Road, over the 3 year period.
3-35
APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.1-2.1 Exhibit 3.1-2.2 Existing Accident Record History Existing Accident Record History Western Project Limits to Hubbell Road East of Hubbell Road Crash Type Severity No. Crash Type Severity No. Animal PDO 21 INJ 1 Animal HEAD ON FAT 1 PDO 31 INJ 2 INJ 2 LEFT TURN OTHER INJ 1 PDO 2 OVERTAKING PDO 1 LEFT TURN from DW PDO 1 REAR END INJ 1 OTHER INJ 1 PDO 5 OVERTAKING PDO 6 Run Off Road/ FO INJ 3 INJ 19 REAR END PDO 4 PDO 51 SIDESWIPE INJ 2 INJ 4 RIGHT ANGLE PDO 1 PDO 3 FAT 1 INJ 3 Run Off Road/ FO Subtotals: INJ 9 PDO 9 PDO 32 INJ 1 SIDESWIPE Segment Total: 42 PDO 2 Abbreviations: INJ 31 FO – Fixed Object Subtotals: PDO – Property Damage Only PDO 105 INJ – Injury FAT – Fatality Segment Total: 136
Route 531 Terminus – Accident Reduction Procedure
The following discussion provides the rationale for the accident reduction factors selected.
Rear End
There were seventy (70) rear end crashes on Route 531, Route 36 near Route 531 and Route 31 near Route 36, with most occurring during the high peak hours. Improvement of mobility and level of service should lead to crash levels declining closer to the shoulder peak hours. These reductions would occur during one (1) hour in the morning (7:00a - 8:00a) and three (3) hours in the evening (3:00p - 6:00p). Therefore, an estimated total of twenty-six (26) rear end crashes would be reduced in a 3 year period for both intersection designs based on similar levels of service improvements.
Exhibit 3.1-3 Route 531 Terminus Rear End Crashes / Reduction Level 3-36 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Introduction of the Superstreet u-turns may introduce rear end crashes and some overtaking crashes, but there are no specific studies to support such an increase. NCHRP Report 524 does provide some indication of possible crash rates at unsignalized median openings for u-turning vehicles; therefore, an increase of 1.3 accidents per year was assumed based on the volume of u-turns and crash rate ranges in the report. This resulted in an estimated twenty-two (22) rear end crash reduction for the 3 year period with the Superstreet Alternative.
For the Full Diamond Interchange, thirty-eight (38) rear end crashes would be eliminated as a result of the overpass with an additional seven (7) reduced by evaluation of the peak hour crashes at the intersection of Route 31 and Route 36. The injury reduction would be approximated at 29% of fifty-six (56) or 16, resulting in approximately 39.7 property damage crashes reductions.
There were 6 rear end crashes from the western project limits to Hubbell Road. Based on the evaluation of accident reports and NYSDOT crash reduction factors, the addition of a left turn lane will reduce this by approximately 2 crashes (1 injury and 1 property damage only).
Right Angle
There were six (6) right angle crashes at Route 531 and Route 36. By making this more of a standard intersection, eliminating the multiple turns & signals, the accident rate should go down to the statewide average of 0.10 accidents per million entering vehicles (MEV). The expected number for three (3) years would be 2.7 crashes compared to the existing six (6) for this intersection. An estimated total of three (3) right angle crashes would be reduced in the 3 year period for the conventional intersection. The superstreet and full diamond alternative would eliminate the sidestreet through move, thereby eliminating right angle crashes. Therefore, an estimated total of 6 right angle crashes would be reduced in the 3 year period for the Superstreet and Full Diamond alternatives. There were no right angle crashes from the western project limits to Hubbell Road.
Left Turn There were only 5 left turn crashes during the period. One left turn movement would be eliminated since it involved a driveway which would no longer enter mainline. In addition, the Route 531 WB through traffic currently making a left turn at Route 36, to avoid delay, would be eliminated thereby reducing the potential for this left turn accident. An estimated total of 2 left turn crashes would be reduced in the 3 year period for all alternatives. There were no left turn crashes from the western project limits to Hubbell Road.
Overtaking
Based on the descriptions of the specific accident reports, 2 of the 6 overtaking crashes could be reduced in the 3 year period for both intersection alternatives. There was only one overtaking crash from the western project limits to Hubbell Road with no significant reduction expected. Three (3) of the six (6) overtaking accidents are estimated to be reduced for the Full Diamond Alternative.
Run Off the Road / Fixed Object / Head-on / Sideswipe
There is no identifiable pattern that would be corrected for either segment studied or any of the three alternatives. Installation of centerline rumble strips (CARDs) and traffic calming on the western approach will reduce head on and sideswipe by 25%. There was 1 fatal, 4 injury and 1 property damage only crash on this section for the 3 year period. Reductions of 0.25 fatal 1 injury and 0.25 property damage crashes are estimated. There were seven (7) run off the road crashes on the western section, which could be reduced by CARDs by approximately 15% or 1 in three years. However, since CARDs have been installed between Salmon Creek Road and Route 260, under separate contract, these reductions are not included as part of this summary.
3-37 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Route 531 Terminus – Accident Reduction Summary
Existing accidents and estimated crash reductions for each segment and alternative are summarized in Exhibit 5.1-3 below. No crash reduction was considered for vehicle collisions with animals and the injury crash reduction factors were estimated to be the same percentage of total crashes before the improvements for the respective study area and crash type.
Exhibit 3.1-4 Existing Non-Deer Crashes and Estimated Reductions Total Fatal Injury PDO Time Total Fatal Injury PDO Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Period Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes 1 Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Western Project Limits to Hubbell Road (common to all alternatives) 3 year 21 1 9 11 2 0 1 1 Annual 7 0.3 3 3.7 0.7 0 0.3 0.3 East of Hubbell Road - Conventional Intersection Alternative 2 3 year 103 0 30 73 33 0 9.6 23.4 Annual 34.3 0 10 24.3 11 0 3.2 7.8 East of Hubbell Road - Superstreet Alternative 3 3 year 103 0 30 73 32 0 9.3 22.7 Annual 34.3 0 10 24.3 10.7 0 3.1 7.6 East of Hubbell Road - Full Diamond Interchange Alternative 5 3 year 103 0 30 73 56 0 16.3 39.7 Annual 34.3 0 10 24.3 18.7 0 5.5 13.2 Note: 1. Injury crash reduction factors were estimated to be the same percentage of total crashes before the improvements.
Monetary Benefit of Accident Reductions
The following is an estimate of the monetary benefits for the at grade intersection alternatives with the improvements to the western approach based on a service life of 20 years and 30 years using a 4% discount rate.
Exhibit 3.1-5 Crash Reduction Benefit Summary Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5
Conventional Superstreet Full Diamond Crash Severity Injury PDO Injury PDO Injury PDO Annual Crash 3.5 8.1 3.4 7.9 5.8 13.5 Reduction Cost per Crash $90,800 $5,200 $90,800 $5,200 $90,800 $5,200 Annual Reduction $317,800 $42,120 $308,720 $41,080 $526,640 $70,200 Benefit Total Annual $359,920 $349,800 $596,840 Benefit 20 Present year $4,894,912 $4,757,280 $8,117,024 Value life of 30 Benefit year $6,226,616 $6,051,540 $10,325,332 life
Present Value of the Benefit (PVB) = Annual Benefit x (P/A, I, n) (P/A, i, n) = factor that converts a series of uniform annual amounts to its present value (P/A, i, n) = [(1+i)n – 1]/i(1+i)n = 13.6 for 20 years and 17.3 for 30 years. i = discount rate = 4% = 0.04 3-38 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
n = service life of the countermeasure(s) in years = 20 years for the intersections and 30 years for the interchange.
3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access
Refer to Section 3.3.1.7(2) for a discussion of the anticipated impacts during construction. For Alternatives 2 & 5, there will be no impacts to emergency vehicles that routinely use this route after the construction phase of the project. For Alternative 3, Emergency Vehicles will either travel a further distance to maneuver the Route 36/Route 531 intersection or ride up and over the proposed mountable center curbed island.
3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues
No changes are proposed.
3.3.1.11. Lighting
The existing Cobra head street lights at the intersections of Route 31 with Route 36, Gallup Road and Salmon Creek Road will be relocated by the Utility Owner. In addition, High Mast street lighting is not required but may be considered and proposed as an enhancement. High Mast street lighting may be added to the two (2) At-Grade Alternatives at the Route 531/Route 36 intersection and to the Full Diamond grade separated interchange for highlighting the entrance and exit ramps and finally to the Hubbell Road channelized intersection. This will be determined during final design and will depend on the County of Monroe’s participation and willingness to accept Maintenance Jurisdiction.
3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction
Refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.12 for existing Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction. The Route 531 centerline and lane miles may increase slightly with all alternatives under consideration. NYSDOT will continue ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the three (3) state highways involved, with the exception of a segment of Route 31 immediately west of the Route 36 intersection as discussed below.
Both the NYSDOT and Monroe County researched their files to determine previous ownership and maintenance of the section of Route 31 to be abandoned by the NYSDOT due to the proposed alignment. Neither the State nor the County could find any records of Monroe County owning this section of Route 31 prior to it becoming a state highway. Therefore, under Sections 62 & 345-A of the NYS Highway Law, the abandoned section of Route 31 from Sta. 10+50 (proposed cul-de-sac) to Sta. 29+50 (intersection with Route 36), approximately 900 feet of roadway, ownership and maintenance will be transferred to the Town of Ogden after completion of this project.
Exhibit 3.3.1.12 Maintenance Jurisdiction Upon Completion of Contract Part CL Lane Highway Limits Features to be Maintained Agency Authority No. (mile) (mile) 1. Route 531 Sta 153+86 Mainline including Pavement, 0.31 1.72 NYSDOT Section 12 of the to Sta curbs, shoulders, drainage, Highway Law 170+35 culverts, striping, signs, landscaping and highway appurtenances. 2. Route 31 Sta 62+00 to Mainline including Pavement, 1.90 3.80 NYSDOT Section 12 of the Sta 153+86; curbs, shoulders, drainage, Highway Law Sta E30+00 culverts, striping, signs, to Sta landscaping and highway E38+50 appurtenances. 3. Access Sta W11+00 Mainline including Pavement, 0.36 0.72 Town of Ogden Section 62 Road to Sta curbs, shoulders, drainage, & Section 345-A (formerly W30+00 culverts, striping, signs, Highway Law Route 31) (Including landscaping and highway Cul-de-Sac) appurtenances.
3-39 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
4. Route 36 Sta 3+00 to Mainline including Pavement, 0.32 0.65 NYSDOT Section 12 of the Sta 20+11 curbs, shoulders, drainage, Highway Law culverts, striping, signs, landscaping and highway appurtenances. 5. Washington Sta 20+11 to Mainline including Pavement, 0.17 0.34 MCDOT Section 10 Street Sta 28+90 curbs, shoulders, drainage, Subdivision 25 CR 212 culverts, striping, signs, Highway Law landscaping and highway appurtenances. 6. Hubbell Sta 8+25 to Mainline including Pavement, 0.03 0.07 MCDOT Section 10 Road Sta 10+00 curbs, shoulders, drainage, Subdivision 25 CR 206 culverts, striping, signs, Highway Law landscaping and highway appurtenances. 7. Gallup Sta 10+00 to Mainline including Pavement, 0.04 0.08 Town of Sweden / Section 10 Road Sta 12+00 curbs, shoulders, drainage, Town of Ogden Subdivision 25 culverts, striping, signs, Highway Law landscaping and highway appurtenances. 8. Salmon Sta 8+23.45 Mainline including Pavement, 0.03 0.07 MCDOT Section 10 Creek Road to Sta 10+00 curbs, shoulders, drainage, Subdivision 25 CR 246 culverts, striping, signs, Highway Law landscaping and highway appurtenances. 9. Route 31 Sta 100+00 Including Highway Street 1.14 2.27 NYSDOT Section 12 Highway to Sta lighting and appurtenances. Highway Law Lighting 160+00 10. Route 31 Sta 125+20 Entire Structure 0.01 0.01 NYSDOT Section 10 over to Sta (Alternative 5 only) Subdivision 25 Salmon 125+50 Highway Law Creek 11. Route 36 Sta 13+05 to Entire Structure 0.04 0.08 NYSDOT Section 10 over Route Sta 15+08 (Alternative 5 only) Subdivision 25 531 Highway Law 12. Route 31 Sta E30+00 All Sidewalks 0.14 0.27 Town of Ogden Section 46 to Sta 37+20 Highway Law 13. CR 221, Sta 20+11 to All Sidewalks 0.14 0.29 Town of Ogden Section 151 Washington Sta 27+70 Highway Law Street
3.3.1.13. Constructability Review
The Regional Construction Group will review the final plans for constructability related issues. This is an ongoing process and any concerns will be addressed.
3.3.2. Multimodal
3.3.2.1. Pedestrians
For all of the feasible alternatives, the Route 531 expressway still terminates on the east side of Route 36 and pedestrians are still prohibited on Route 531 by state law. West of Route 36, Route 31 will have sweeping curves with intersection modifications and channelization at Hubbell Road and Gallup Road. These are traffic calming improvements intended to reduce vehicle speeds and accidents. All of the feasible alternatives have an alternative specific approach to pedestrian travel at the new terminus. In general, the new terminus will provide a less direct movement for Route 31 pedestrians by eliminating the Route 31 through movement at Route 36 and requiring left and right turn movements on to Route 36 to continue east and west on Route 31. Former Route 31 will be revised to a cul-de-sac approximately 2,000 feet west of Route 36, which will continue to provide access to the residential homes on the north side along this segment.
3-40 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
NYSDOT policy is to accommodate pedestrians when generators of pedestrian activity are present and there is a probable use. At the Route 31 / Route 36 intersection, it has been determined that sidewalks are warranted due to the density of residential houses and the location of the M&M Minimart Convenience Store at the northeast corner of the intersection. For all of the feasible alternatives, sidewalks and curb ramps will be provided on both sides of Route 36, north of Route 31 to the northern project limits, and along both sides of Route 31, east of Route 36 extending to the intersection with Blackburn Knoll on the north side and approximately 650 feet on the south side. Sidewalks and curb ramps will be designed in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. Pedestrian crosswalk markings will be provided at the intersection. These provisions will improve the conditions for pedestrian travel. Additionally, pedestrian safety is improved at the Route 31 / Route 36 intersection due to the decrease in motor vehicle volumes (2,200 vehicles per hour to 950 vehicles per hour) as a result of the new terminus. Sidewalks are not warranted anywhere else along Route 31 or Route 36. Pedestrians may legally use the paved shoulders along these routes. A pedestrian generator checklist is included in Appendix C.
Alternatives 2 (the at-grade conventional signalized intersection), 3 (the at-grade signalized superstreet intersection) and 5 (the Full Diamond interchange) widen the shoulders to a minimum of 8 feet in both directions along Route 31 and Route 36, within the project limits. Alternatives 2 and 3 provide pedestrian push buttons, countdown timers and crosswalks at the new terminus. Pedestrian countdown timers signal the number of seconds remaining during the pedestrian crossing phase at signalized intersections. The device is intended to provide information to crossing pedestrians by helping them judge whether there is sufficient time to cross. Additionally, Alternative 3 provides curb ramps for the raised median in the middle of the intersection. Alternative 5 provides crosswalks at the entrance and exit ramps of the new terminus along Route 36. These provisions will improve the conditions for pedestrian travel.
The way pedestrians travel through the new terminus is different for each alternative. Alternative 2 is a typical signalized intersection where pedestrians cross using the pedestrian push buttons, countdown timers and crosswalks. The crossing distances for all legs of the intersection will be longer as compared to the existing intersection. To aid and protect pedestrians crossing the intersection, raised islands will be provided. Raised islands and medians are traffic calming improvements intended to reduce vehicle speeds and accidents. They also provide refuge for pedestrians who begin crossing the intersection too late or are only capable of walking exceptionally slow. Pedestrians should use the push buttons to safely cross the intersection. When activated, pedestrian push buttons actuate the pedestrian crossing phase at signalized intersections, allowing pedestrians enough time to safely cross. The push buttons also activate the pedestrian countdown timers.
Alternative 3 is unique due to a raised island in the middle of the signalized superstreet intersection. The raised island affects the way pedestrians cross the intersection. Southbound pedestrians are routed to the northeast corner of the intersection where they cross the east side of the intersection to get to the raised island. Pedestrians then cross the island diagonally before crossing the west side of the intersection to get to the southwest corner. Finally, pedestrians should cross to the southeast corner of the intersection to walk south, facing traffic. This is a three stage crossing where pedestrians should use the push buttons, crosswalks and raised island to safely cross each stage of the intersection. The raised island provides refuge for pedestrians in between crossing stages. Northbound pedestrians are routed to the southwest corner of the intersection where they cross following the reverse route described above. The north and southbound crossing distances are approximately 255 feet long due to the addition of the raised island in the middle of the intersection and another travel lane. Pedestrians crossing the intersection in an east-west direction should use the push buttons, crosswalks and raised island to safely cross the intersection.
A comparison of Alternative 3 to Alternative 2 reveals that Alternative 3 has less vehicular conflict points with pedestrians. However, Alternative 3 has longer north and southbound crossing distances which takes more time to cross. Pedestrians crossing the signalized superstreet intersection in a north-south direction walk an additional 130 feet which more than doubles the time it takes to cross as compared to Alternative 2. Based on past experience, longer crossing distances and longer wait times can result in risky pedestrian behavior. Some pedestrians may be inclined to bypass part of or the entire marked
3-41 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
pedestrian route and cross under conditions without signal control, thereby increasing the potential for pedestrian accidents.
Alternative 5 is a typical unsignalized full diamond interchange with entrance ramps and stop controlled exit ramps. Since Route 36 is grade separated from Route 531 there are no pedestrian/vehicle conflicts with mainline Route 531 traffic. North and southbound pedestrians on Route 36 have the right of way when crossing the entrance and exit ramps. To access Route 31 west, pedestrians should use the eastbound exit ramp to walk west, facing traffic. To access Route 36 from Route 31 east, pedestrians should use the westbound entrance ramp to walk east, facing traffic. The Route 31 entrance and exit ramps are both west of Route 36 which is not part of Route 531. Route 531 begins east of Route 36. East and westbound pedestrians are able to cross Route 36 during gaps in vehicular traffic.
A comparison of Alternative 5 to the other alternatives reveals that Alternative 5 is the safest for pedestrian travel whether crossing the entrance and exit ramps on Route 36 or using the ramps to access Route 31 or Route 36. This is due to the grade separation of Route 36 over Route 531 which decreases the volume of motor vehicles on Route 36.
3.3.2.2. Bicyclists
For all of the feasible alternatives, the Route 531 expressway still terminates on the east side of Route 36. West of Route 36, Route 31 introduces sweeping curves with intersection modifications and channelization at Hubbell Road and Gallup Road. These are traffic calming improvements intended to reduce vehicle speeds and accidents. All of the feasible alternatives have an alternative specific approach to bicycle accommodation at the new terminus, refer to Exhibits 3.3.2.2-1 to 3.3.2.2-3 on the following pages. In general, the new terminus will provide a less direct movement for Route 31/Bike Route 5 bicyclists by eliminating the Route 31/Bike Route 5 through movement at Route 36 and requiring left and right turn movements on to Route 36 to continue east and west on Route 31/Bike Route 5. Former Route 31/Bike Route 5 will be revised to a cul-de-sac approximately 2,000 feet west of Route 36, which will continue to provide access to the residential homes on the north side along this segment.
All of the feasible alternatives widen the shoulders to a minimum of 8 feet in both directions along Route 31 and Route 36, within the project limits. To improve the accommodations for bicyclists heading north on Route 36 at the Route 31 intersection, an exclusive bicycle through lane is provided to the left of the right turn lane. This allows bicyclists to merge left in advance of the intersection to enter the bicycle through lane to proceed straight through the intersection, avoiding last second turning conflicts. This also encourages bicyclists to follow the rules of the road: through vehicles (including bicyclists) proceed to the left of right turning vehicles. These provisions will improve the conditions for bicycle travel.
The way bicyclists travel through the new terminus is different for each alternative. Alternative 2 (the at- grade conventional signalized intersection) is a typical signalized intersection where bicyclists cross using the traffic signals. Bicyclists are still prohibited on Route 531 by state law. To improve the accommodations for bicyclists heading east on Route 31/Bike Route 5 at the intersection, an exclusive bicycle left turn lane is provided to the left of the inside through lane. This allows two methods for bicyclists to turn left. The first method allows bicyclists to merge left across two travel lanes in advance of the intersection to enter the bicycle left turn lane to turn left on to Route 36. Merging movements in advance of an intersection are often easier to manage for bicyclists and other road users than last second turning conflicts. Bike Route 5 eastbound bicyclists then proceed north on Route 36 for a short distance to the Route 36 / Route 31 intersection before turning right on to Route 31/Bike Route 5 east.
The second method allows bicyclists heading east on Route 31/Bike Route 5 to stay on the shoulder and proceed straight across Route 36, stopping on the far side of the intersection (at the southeast corner). Bicyclists then turn their bicycle to the left and proceed north on Route 36, crossing Route 531, to get to the northeast corner. Route 31/Bike Route 5 eastbound bicyclists continue north on Route 36 for a short distance to the Route 36 / Route 31 intersection before turning right on to Route 31/Bike Route 5 east. To improve the accommodations for southbound bicyclists on Route 36, an exclusive bicycle through lane is provided to the left of the right turn lane.
3-42 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Alternative 3 (the at-grade signalized superstreet intersection) is unique for two reasons: there is a raised island in the middle of the signalized superstreet intersection and bicyclists may be allowed on the Route 531 Expressway. The state law that currently prohibits bicyclists on Route 531 may need to be amended. The raised island affects the methods bicyclists use to cross the intersection using the traffic signals. Northbound bicyclists on Route 36 have two methods to cross the intersection. The first method allows bicyclists to turn right on to Route 531 and ride approximately 600 feet to a U-turn in the median. Beyond the U-turn, bicyclists will be prohibited on Route 531 by state law. In advance of the U-turn, bicyclists are required to merge left across two travel lanes to enter an exclusive bicycle left turn lane. Bicyclists then make a U-turn against traffic and cross two travel lanes to proceed back to the Route 36 intersection to complete their maneuver. Bicyclists heading north turn right on to Route 36. To improve the accommodations for bicyclists heading west on Route 31/Bike Route 5, an exclusive bicycle through lane is provided to the left of the right turn lane. This allows bicyclists to merge left in advance of the intersection to enter the bicycle through lane to proceed straight through the intersection, avoiding last second turning conflicts.
The second method allows northbound bicyclists to stop at the southeast corner of the intersection before turning their bicycle to the left and using the crosswalk to proceed west across Route 36, stopping at the southwest corner of the intersection. When crossing, bicyclists may choose to ride against traffic or walk their bicycle. Bicyclists then turn their bicycle to the right before using the crosswalk to proceed north across the west side of the intersection to get to the raised island. Bicyclists then cross the center island diagonally before using the crosswalk to proceed north across the east side of the intersection to get to the northeast corner and proceed north on Route 36. Southbound bicyclists on Route 36 have the same methods described above to cross the intersection, except they would use Route 31 to perform a U-turn through the crossover.
To improve accommodations for bicyclists heading east on Route 31/Bike Route 5 at the signalized superstreet intersection, an exclusive bicycle left turn lane is provided from Route 31/Bike Route 5 east to Route 36 north. This allows two methods for bicyclists to turn left. The first method allows bicyclists to merge left across two travel lanes in advance of the intersection to enter the bicycle left turn lane to turn left on to Route 36. Route 31/Bike Route 5 eastbound bicyclists then proceed north on Route 36 for a short distance to the Route 36 / Route 31 intersection before turning right on to Route 31/Bike Route 5 east. The second method allows bicyclists to stay on the shoulder of Route 31/Bike Route 5 and stop at the southwest corner of the intersection before turning their bicycle to the left and using the crosswalk to proceed north across the west side of the intersection to get to the raised island. When crossing, bicyclists may choose to ride or walk their bicycle. Bicyclists then cross the center island diagonally before using the crosswalk to proceed north across the east side of the intersection to get to the northeast corner. Route 31/Bike Route 5 eastbound bicyclists then proceed north on Route 36 for a short distance to the Route 36 / Route 31 intersection before turning right on to Route 31/Bike Route 5 east. At the Route 31 / Route 36 intersection, westbound bicyclists on Route 31/Bike Route 5 turn left on to Route 36 and proceed south for a short distance to the signalized superstreet intersection. At the intersection, bicyclists turn right on to Route 31/Bike Route 5 west.
A comparison of Alternative 3 to Alternative 2 reveals that Alternative 3 has less vehicular conflict points with bicyclists. However, Alternative 3 is a unique intersection and therefore could be confusing for a bicyclist to maneuver through. Also, Alternative 3 has longer north and southbound crossing distances which takes more time to cross. Based on past experience, longer crossing distances and longer wait times can result in risky bicycling behavior. Some bicyclists may be inclined to bypass part of or the entire bicycle route and cross under conditions without signal control, thereby increasing the potential for bicycling accidents.
Alternative 5 is a typical unsignalized full diamond interchange with entrance ramps and stop controlled exit ramps. Since Route 36 is grade separated from Route 531 there are no bicycle/vehicle conflicts with mainline Route 531 traffic. North and southbound bicyclists on Route 36 have the right of way when
3-43 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.3.2.2-1 Bicycle Accommodation Plan Alternative 2 – Conventional Signalized Intersection
3-44 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.3.2.2-2 Bicycle Accommodation Plan Alternative 3 – Signalized Superstreet Median Crossover
3-45 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 3.3.2.2-3 Bicycle Accommodation Plan Alternative 5 – Full Diamond Interchange
3-46 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
crossing the entrance and exit ramps. To access Route 31/Bike Route 5 and Route 36, bicyclists use the entrance and exit ramps west of Route 36. These ramps are not considered part of Route 531 Expressway, which begins east of Route 36; bicyclists will still be prohibited on Route 531 by state law. To improve the accommodations for Route 31/Bike Route 5 eastbound bicyclists using the eastbound exit ramp, an exclusive bicycle left turn lane is provided to turn left on to Route 36 during gaps in vehicular traffic. Route 31/Bike Route 5 eastbound bicyclists then proceed north on Route 36 for a short distance to the Route 36 / Route 31 intersection before turning right on to Route 31/Bike Route 5 east.
A comparison of Alternative 5 to the other alternatives reveals that Alternative 5 is the safest for bicyclists whether they are crossing the entrance and exit ramps on Route 36 or using the ramps to access Route 31/Bike Route 5 or Route 36. This is due to the grade separation of Route 36 over Route 531 which decreases the volume of motor vehicles on Route 36.
3.3.2.3. Transit
RGRTA Bus Route 20 services Route 31; it currently travels through the project corridor and utilizes the six (6) existing bus stops at Salmon Creek Road, Hubbell Road & Route 36 intersections.
No changes are proposed and the existing RTS bus stops will be maintained, however at the Route 31/Route 36 intersection the eastbound bus stop will be relocated to the east side of the intersection with sidewalks.
3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports
No transportation stations are present within the project corridor, therefore no changes are proposed.
3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands)
Access to and from Northampton Park along Route 31 will be improved with Hubbell Road and Salmon Creek Road intersection modifications. The Hubbell Road intersection would remain a full access intersection but would incorporate a channelized island for left turn movements. Turning vehicles will have designated lanes to remove them from the traffic stream along with acceleration and deceleration lanes. The Salmon Creek Road intersection would provide left turn provisions and a continuous two way left turn lane between Salmon Creek Road and Gallup Road offering storage lanes and thereby enhancing access to and from the Northampton Park Entrance at Salmon Creek Road.
3.3.3. Infrastructure
3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section
Refer to Appendix A for the Route 531, Route 31 & Route 36 typical sections for the at-grade intersection and grade separated interchange alternatives.
3.3.3.1.1 Right of Way
Due to the realignment of Route 31 and associated highway improvements, the following property acquisitions shown in Exhibit 3.3.3.1 are anticipated as part of this project. Six (6) relocations and the remaining partial property acquisitions along the north side of Route 31 from the proposed Cul-de-Sac to Gallup Road will be acquired without access. In general, all three (3) feasible alternatives will require properties 1 – 16 noted below. Under Alternative 5 only, one (1) partial property is required on the west side of Route 36, which will be acquired without access to accommodate the eastbound exit ramp.
This eastbound exit ramp acquisition, in the southwest quadrant of the Route 531/Route 36 intersection, is located in Northampton Park and totals 0.70 acres; it is expected that this will have a De Minimus
3-47 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
effect. Three (3) parcel acquisitions are within Agricultural District, Monroe County No. 5 – Northwest, which varies from 2.13 to 2.07 acres involving properties 2, 8 & 13 below.
Exhibit 3.3.3.1 Anticipated Permanent Right-of-Way Acquisitions Parcel Size Estimated Acquisition Size (Acres) Acquisition No. Alternative(s) Reputed Owner Purpose (+/-) Type Ac Ac % of Parcel
Alt2 Alt 3 Alt5 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5 Randall & Margery Highway 1 2,3,5 Fee 75.34 1 Robb Infrastruct. 0.02 0.02
Highway 2 2,3,5 Alan & Lisa Hart Fee 2.47 0.04 1.62 Infrastruct.
Monroe County Water Highway 3 2,3,5 Fee/WOA 0.99 0.01 0.01 Authority Infrastruct.
Randall & Margery Highway 21.55 1 1 1 4 2,3,5 Fee/WOA 1.03 1.04 1.09 4.78 4.83 5.06 Robb Infrastruct.
Elwood & Patricia Highway 2 2 2 5 2,3,5 Fee/WOA 0.50 0.28 0.28 0.29 56.0 56.0 58.0 Moore Infrastruct.
Highway 2 6 2,3,5 Shirley L. Insalaco Fee/WOA 0.41 0.23 56.1 Infrastruct. Daniel & Gale Highway 7 2,3,5 Morehouse / Edward & Fee/WOA 0.46 0.25 0.25 0.24 54.3 54.4 52.2 Deborah Moorehouse Infrastruct. Daniel & Gale Highway 2 2 2 8 2,3,5 Morehouse / Edward & Fee/WOA 0.46 0.22 0.22 0.21 47.8 47.8 45.7 Infrastruct. Deborah Moorehouse
The Diocese of Highway 9 2,3,5 Fee/WOA 0.46 0.16 0.17 0.16 34.8 36.9 34.8 Rochester Infrastruct.
Randall & Margery Highway 1 1 1 10 2,3,5 Fee/WOA 59.5 0.90 0.89 0.78 1.51 1.5 1.31 Robb Infrastruct.
Highway 2 2 2 11 2,3,5 Karen Brogan Fee/WOA Infrastruct. 0.57 0.12 0.11 0.10 21.1 19.3 17.5
Randall & Margery Highway 2 2 2 12 2,3,5 Fee/WOA 2.66 0.13 0.13 0.11 4.89 4.89 4.14 Robb Infrastruct.
Highway 2 2 2 13 2,3,5 David Bonacci Fee/WOA 1.56 0.21 0.29 0.10 13.5 18.6 6.41 Infrastruct.
Highway Michael & Konstantinos 46.88 14 2,3,5 Fee/WOA Infrastruct. 0.08 0.18 0.04 0.17 0.38 0.09 Savidis Highway 15 2,3,5 Robert & Loretta Ross Fee/WOA 10.29 0.01 0.10 Infrastruct.
George & Cynthia Highway 16 2,3,5 Fee/WOA 7.0 0.29 4.14 Forest Infrastruct.
County of Monroe Real Highway 3 17 5 Fee/WOA 48.86 0 0 0.70 0 0 1.43 Estate Division Infrastruct.
Total Impacts: 3.91 4.09 4.35
Total Park Impacts: 0.70 Notes: 1. Property is within Agricultural District, Monroe County No. 5 - Northwest. 2. Property will require a relocation. 3. Property is within Northampton Park.
3-48 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
3.3.3.1.2 Curb
Six inch mountable curb would be provided with any of the feasible alternatives at the Terminus intersection/interchange and along Route 36 and Route 31 highways to accommodate drainage and minimize grading impacts as needed.
3.3.3.1.3 Grades – The proposed maximum grades for each alternative shall be as follows: • Route 531 1.8% 1.8% 2.5% • Route 31 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% • Route 36 4.8% 4.8% 4.5% • Ramp N-SE, N-SW, E-NS, W-NS n/a n/a 4.5%
These grades do not warrant a climbing lane.
3.3.3.1.4 Intersection Geometry and Conditions
Under Alternative 2 and 3 the existing Route 531/Route 36 intersection will be replaced with a conventional four-leg signalized intersection or a signalized superstreet median crossover including additional through and turning lanes. In addition, the superstreet alternative will include median crossovers for Route 36 traffic maneuvers. The conventional signalized intersection and the signalized superstreet will be controlled with a four-phase or two-phase operation, respectively.
Under the grade separated interchange – Alternative 5, the existing Route 531 intersection with Route 36 will be eliminated and replaced with a grade separation as part of the new full Diamond interchange. One lane entrance and exit ramps are proposed with exit ramps transitioning to two lanes providing left and right turn lanes at the ramp termini with Route 36; these exit ramps will be stop controlled.
The intersection of Route 31 & Route 36 currently has extraneous pavement with the excess pavement being removed; the remaining pavement will be retained and rehabilitated using mill and overlay to restore the pavement and accommodate proposed striping. All of the intersection approaches will be reduced to one lane in each direction, with one (1) Route 36 northbound right turn lane. In addition, the north curb line along Route 31 will be retained with the excess pavement removed from the south side; the travel lanes along Route 36 will be centered on the existing alignment, with excess pavement removed from both sides. Proposed curb and drainage modification will be required along Route 36 and Route 31 to accommodate the reduced section width.
The existing Route 31/Route 36 traffic signal is no longer warranted and will be removed as a safety measure thereby eliminating conflicting movements and reducing visual confusion. There have been reports where the traffic traveling north on Route 36 would confuse the distant Route 31 / 36 signal for the nearer Route 531 / 36 signal that should be observed; this is a safety concern since these signals are coordinated but have green and red lenses displayed at the same time, during certain phases. The proposed Route 31/Route 36 intersection will be 2-way stop controlled and for acceptable Levels of Service, Route 31 will be stop controlled and the aforementioned Route 36 right turn lane will be added.
The Route 31 and Hubbell Road intersection will provide a channelized island providing left turn storage using a raised median; the intersection will accomodate one lane in each direction along Route 31, a westbound left turn lane and an acceleration lane for northbound traffic exiting Hubbell Road and traveling west along Route 31 and southbound traffic exiting Gallup Road and travelling east along Route 31.
Route 31 will provide a center turn lane between Salmon Creek Road and Gallup Road to remove left turning vehicles from the through traffic movement. Proceeding west on Route 31, the mainline will transition to one lane in each direction, thereby eliminating the center turn lane at the west end of the project. Immediately east of Gallup Road, the center turn lane width will be striped and used as a refuge area just prior to the Route 31 raised median; this will accommodate traffic turning left onto Route 31
3-49 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
when insufficient gaps are encountered. The Salmon Creek Road and Gallup Road geometry will remain the same.
Refer to Exhibits 3.2.1-1 to 3.2.1-4 for the geometry of Alternatives 2, 3 and 5.
3.3.3.1. (6) Roadside Elements: (a) Snow Storage, Sidewalks, Utility Strips, Bikeways, Bus Stops – the following features will be added. Snow plow turn arounds may be required due to a likely change in contract plowing on Route 31 with the Towns. Potentially two (2) turn around locations will be determined during final design. Sidewalk will be provided along both sides of Route 36, north of Route 31 to the northern project limits, and along both side of Route 31 east of Route 36, extending to the intersection with Blackburn Knoll on the north side and approximately 650 feet on the south side with additional bike lanes per alternative; (b) Driveways – The remaining driveways will be modified as required to comply with the current NYSDOT “Policy and Standards for Design of Entrances to State Highways.” (c) Signing – The signing will be improved to indicate the Route 531 Expressway Ends and notification of new traffic movements within the terminus and the Route 31 cul-de-sac. (d) Clear Zone – The clear zone will be approximately 30 feet wide and will be refined during final design to adjust for design speed, slopes, traffic volumes and roadway curvature as necessary. • Alternative 2 – Conventional Signalized Intersection shall provide 30 ft (min.) • Alternative 3 – Signalized Modified Superstreet shall provide 30 ft (min.) • Alternative 5 – Full Diamond Interchange shall provide 30 ft (min.) • Route 31 corridor – shall provide 30 ft (desirable)
3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements
3.3.3.2.1 Non-Standard Features
The following nonstandard features within the project limits are part of all three (3) feasible alternatives.
Proposed horizontal curvature along Route 31 – Traffic Calming feature In order to address the speed transition along Route 31 the project will propose horizontal curves as follows: • Sta. EB 75+35 to Sta. EB 79+50 (R=3480 ft, e=3.3%) – point of reverse curvature • Sta. EB 79+50 to Sta. EB 87+36 (R=2300 ft, e=4.6%) – point of compound curvature • Sta. EB 87+36 to Sta. EB 93+20 (R=3480 ft, e=3.3%) – point of reverse curvature • Sta. EB 93+20 to Sta. 97+40 (R=3480 ft, e=3.3%) – point of tangency • Sta. WB C 10+00 to Sta. WB C 16+22 (R=2291 ft, e=4.6%) – point of reverse curvature • Sta. WB C 16+22 to Sta. WB C 25+33 (R=2300 ft, e=4.6%) – point of reverse curvature • Sta. WB C 25+33 to Sta. WB C 29+30 (R=2312 ft, e=4.6%) – point of tangency
These four (4) EB and three (3) WB sweeping horizontal curves through two intersection modifications are designed at Hubbell Road and Gallup Road as traffic calming features. Taking into account horizontal curvature with proposed radii of 3480’ (e=3.3%) and typically 2300’ (e=4.6%) a reduced operating speed of 50 mph is expected.
The Non-Standard Features Justification form can be found in Appendix E.
3.3.3.2.2 Non-Conforming
There are no non-conforming features being created or retained within the project limits as part of the preferred alternatives.
3-50 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder
In order to accommodate the new horizontal and vertical Terminus with Routes 36 and 31, a portion of the Route 531 pavement will require full depth reconstruction using either asphalt or PCC pavement. Using traffic volumes and projected growth factors, total 80 kN ESAL’s were computed for the 50-year design life. Based on total estimated ESALs and an underlying soil Mr value of 34MPa, an appropriate full depth asphalt pavement section would include 11” of Superpave asphalt over a 12” thick subbase course, while a rigid pavement section would include an 11” thick PCC slab over 12” of subbase.
It is recommended however that since the existing pavement is in good condition (less than 18 years old), in areas where the existing Route 531 pavement can be retained in-place, it should be widened and resurfaced as needed in lieu of full reconstruction.
Route 36 is also in good condition and should be retained when feasible. Full depth asphalt widening is recommended as needed and the entire effected segment should be topped with a single asphalt overlay (preceded potentially by asphalt milling). A segment of Route 36 will be reconstructed to improve the existing stopping sight distance (Alternative 2 & 3) and/or flyover of the proposed Route 531 interchange (Alt. 5) and will require full depth reconstruction using either asphalt or PCC pavement due to the vertical change.
Based on the Route 31 Pavement Evaluation Treatment Selection Report (Technical Appendix B1, available upon request), it was determined that the following pavement treatment option would be used:
• Cold Milling and Multiple Course Asphalt Overlay (> 3”) 15-year service life
However, due to significant proposed realignments of Route 31, the roadway will also require significant amounts of full depth widening, which will consist of an asphalt pavement section.
In addition to the above treatments, all options will also include the installation of subsurface drainage features such as asphalt treated permeable base course, underdrain piping and/or subbase day lighting. A Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) was developed to evaluate the merits of each of treatment options described above and is also included in Technical Appendix B1.
Refer to the Typical Section Drawings in Appendix A for a proposed pavement section.
3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems
Modifications and or additions to the existing closed drainage system will be constructed along all proposed roadways within the project limits as necessary. Existing drainage ditches and structures will be cleaned as part of the feasible alternatives. The existing drainage system improvements will be limited to catch basin replacements, and supplemental catch basin installations where needed, to provide adequate roadway drainage throughout the corridor. In addition manhole frames and covers will be replaced and a 6” underdrain system will be installed along the proposed shoulder to enhance subsurface pavement drainage.
Upon selection of the preferred alternative, stormwater management facilities will be planned and implemented in accordance with NYSDEC SPDES General Permit GP-0-10-001. Although considered to be a “Redevelopment Project” and therefore exempt from the Rainfall Reduction volume (RRv) requirement, the new Green Infrastructure (GI) Planning process must be progressed in order to allow for the optimization of potential treatment facility types and locations within the project area. The goal of the GI Planning process is to also ensure that consideration be given to minimizing the creation of new impervious surfaces while maximizing green space and riparian buffer preservation where practical. In accordance with the SPDES regulations and in particular the GI planning process, the project designers will first consider controls that promote infiltration, evapotranspiration and/or filtering, as the regulations encourage the avoidance of traditional end-of-pipe treatment facilities (i.e. detention ponds). When GI
3-51 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
treatment facilities are deemed to be infeasible or impractical, then traditional controls (i.e. ponds) may be proposed. It is fully expected that this project will be in full compliance with GP-0-10-001.
3.3.3.5. Geotechnical
At this time, it is anticipated that rock will be encountered during the construction of the Route 531 interchange when Route 531 passes under Route 36 for Alternative 5. Soil boring information indicates the bedrock elevation will be in the proximity of the Route 531 open ditch invert, which will be excavated during construction.
3.3.3.6. Structures
The structures included within the study area depend on the alternative. Alternatives 2 and 3 would include lengthening and rehabilitating the existing eastbound ramp culvert over Spring Creek tributary and the Route 31 culvert over Salmon Creek. Alternative 5 would replace the Route 31 culvert over Salmon Creek with a bridge and construct a bridge to carry Route 36 over Route 531. Bridge widths are in accordance with the lane and shoulder widths set in the Design Criteria, Section 3.2.3.
Additional Structures information for each Alternative is as follows:
Alternative 2 – Route 531/Route 36 At-grade Conventional Signalized Intersection with Route 31 Improvements This alternative will require lengthening the south end of the Route 31 over Salmon Creek culvert by approximately 12 feet to carry the widened roadway and shoulders. The culvert will be rehabilitated to repair the deteriorated (spalls and exposed reinforcing) deck fascia’s and construction joints between abutment walls and wingwalls. The northeast wingwall stem will likely require full replacement due to severe deterioration.
Route 31 over Salmon Creek Culvert 3.3.3.6.1-1 Description of Work – Lengthen south end of culvert, remove and replace both deteriorated deck fascias, replace the deteriorated northeast wingwall, repair northwest wingwall to abutment construction joint, remove both south wingwalls and reconstruct in new locations due to culvert widening, replace culvert rail. (a) Type of bridge, number of spans, etc. – Single span culvert, reinforced concrete top slab on concrete abutment walls. (b) Width of travel lanes, shoulders, and sidewalks – Two 12 foot lanes, 8 foot right shoulders and 4 foot left shoulders in each direction, and a 6 foot wide raised median. Refer to the typical section included in Appendix A. (c) Utilities carried – None 3.3.3.6.2-1 Clearances: Horizontal – N/A; Vertical – Maximum headwater/culvert depth ratio = 0.85 foot, and an available freeboard of 1.47 feet (based on HY8). 3.3.3.6.3-1 Live Load – HS 20 for the widened section of the culvert. 3.3.2.6.4-1 Associated Work – None 3.3.3.6.5-1 Waterway – State USACE and NYSDEC permits are required; Salmon Creek is a non- navigable waterway and a Coast Guard permit is not required.
Alternative 3 – Route 531/Route 36 At-grade Signalized Superstreet Median Crossover with Route 31 Improvements
This alternative is very similar to Alternative 2, except the south end of the Route 31 over Salmon Creek culvert will be lengthening by approximately 13 feet to carry the widened roadway and shoulders. The culvert will be rehabilitated to repair the deteriorated (spalls and exposed reinforcing) deck fascias and construction joints between abutment walls and wingwalls. The northeast wingwall stem will likely require full replacement due to severe deterioration.
3-52 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Route 31 over Salmon Creek Culvert 3.3.3.6.1-3 Description of Work – Lengthen south end of culvert, remove and replace both deteriorated deck fascias, replace the deteriorated northeast wingwall, repair northwest wingwall to abutment construction joint, remove both south wingwalls and reconstruct in new locations due to culvert widening, replace culvert rail. (a) Type of bridge, number of spans, etc. – Single span bridge; likely a prefabricated steel truss superstructure on cast-in-place concrete abutments. (b) Width of travel lanes, shoulders, and sidewalks – Two 12 foot lanes, 8 foot right shoulders and 4 foot left shoulders in each direction, and a 6 foot wide raised median. Refer to the typical section included in Appendix A. (c) Utilities carried – None 3.3.3.6.2-3 Clearances: Horizontal – N/A; Vertical - Maximum headwater/culvert depth ratio = 0.85 foot, and an available freeboard of 1.47 feet (based on HY8). 3.3.3.6.3-3 Live Load – HS 20 for the widened section of the culvert. 3.3.2.6.4-3 Associated Work – None 3.3.3.6.5-3 Waterway – State USACE and NYSDEC permits are required; Salmon Creek is a non- navigable waterway and a Coast Guard permit is not required.
Alternative 5 – Route 531/Route 36 Full Diamond Interchange with Route 31 Improvements This alternative includes the construction of two bridges. The existing culvert carrying Route 31 over Salmon Creek will be removed and replaced with a three sided bridge. This alternative also includes a new two span bridge carrying Route 36 over Route 531 within the full diamond interchange.
Route 31 over Salmon Creek 3.3.3.6.1-5 Description of Work – Construct a new single span bridge, with the abutments carrying a superstructure for Route 531. (a) Type of bridge, number of spans, etc. – The superstructure will be a three (3) sided single span and may be built in-place or precast. (b) Width of travel lanes, shoulders, and sidewalks – Route 531 lane widths vary across the culvert in both directions due to ramp flares. The superstructure will carry one 14.6 foot (average) westbound lane, one 20.6 foot (average) eastbound lane, 8 foot right shoulders and 4 foot left shoulders in each direction, and a 6 foot wide raised median. Refer to the typical section included in Appendix A. (c) Utilities carried – None 3.3.3.6.2-5 Clearances: Horizontal – N/A; Vertical –2 feet of freeboard over the 50-year design flood. 3.3.3.6.3-5 Live Load – HL-93 for the Route 531 structure. 3.3.2.6.4-5 Associated Work – None. 3.3.3.6.5-5 Waterway – State USACE and NYSDEC permits are required; Salmon Creek is a non- navigable waterway and a Coast Guard permit is not required.
Route 36 over Route 531 (Full Diamond Interchange) 3.3.3.6.1-6 Description of Work – Construct a new two span bridge. Aesthetic concerns include the possibility of a precast concrete box beam superstructure with arched box beam bottoms to simulate an arch bridge. (a) Type of bridge, number of spans, etc. - Two span conventional steel or precast concrete box beam superstructure on concrete abutments. (b) Width of travel lanes, shoulders, and sidewalks – The structure will carry one 12 foot lane and 6 foot shoulder in each direction, and a 14 foot shared left turn lane to Route 531 EB and WB. Refer to the typical section included in Appendix A. (c) Utilities carried – Potential electric, telephone, cable TV, gas and water 3.3.3.6.2-6 Clearances: Horizontal – 30 feet (minimum); Vertical – 16’-6” (minimum) 3.3.3.6.3-6 Live Load – HL-93 3.3.2.6.4-6 Associated Work – None 3.3.3.6.5-6 Waterway – N/A
3-53 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts
Salmon Creek, the only major tributary that traverses through the project area is conveyed under Route 31 via a large concrete box culvert. Refer to Section 2.3.3.7 for a detailed description of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses associated with assessing the adequacy of the existing culvert hydraulic capability.
Given that the existing approx. 7’ x 20’ culvert has a HW/D ratio of 0.85 and an available freeboard of 1.47ft (based on HY8), the existing culvert could be rehabilitated (depending on condition) and extended to accommodate the new and improved overlying roadway under Alternatives 2 & 3. The culvert hydraulic opening would not require enhancement. Under Alternative 5, the existing culvert will be replaced with a bridge as noted in Section 3.3.3.6 to satisfy geometrical requirements.
3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators
All guiderail within the project limits including bridge railing will be evaluated during final design for conformance to design standards and replaced or repaired, if necessary.
3.3.3.9. Utilities
It is anticipated that the project will not require any utility to be relocated outside of the proposed highway boundary. All utility work to be completed in conjunction with this project will require a highway work permit to be issued by the NYSDOT.
Existing utilities within the limit of work will be relocated, if required, in order to facilitate the proposed construction. Exhibit 3.3.3.9 identifies the major utilities within the corridor and whether or not they may be impacted by construction. It is anticipated that Monroe County Water Authority (MCWA) watermain relocation along Route 531 and Route 31 mainline improvements will be required and ongoing coordination with MCWA will be required during final design.
Exhibit 3.3.3.9 Location of Potential Utility Impacts Owner Type (Denote Location Side Length (ft) Impact OH/UG) RG&E Gas Main (UG) 123+00 - 125+85 RT 285 Relocation Route 31 128+00 - 130+00 LT 200 Relocation W10+00 - W12+00 LT 200 Relocation Route 36 9+50 - 14+00 LT 450 Relocation Gallup Road G10+00 - G12+00 LT 200 Relocation RG&E Electric (OH) 91+00 - 130+00 LT 3900 Relocation Route 31 W6+85 - W12+00 LT 515 Relocation Route 36 7+50 - 9+50 RT 200 Relocation 12+00 - 15+00 RT 300 Relocation 15+00 - 20+00 LT 500 Relocation Electric (UG) 97+25 - 98+00 LT 75 Relocation National Grid Electric (OH) 62+00 - 69+50 RT 750 Relocation Route 31 68+25 - 86+00 LT 1775 Relocation MCWA Waterline (UG) 86+25 - 86+75 LT 50 New Route 31 91+75 - 92+75 RT 100 New 93+75 - 94+75 RT 100 New 96+75 - 97+25 RT 50 New 99+25 - 104+25 RT 500 New 105+25 - 106+75 RT 150 New
3-54 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
110+25 - 110+75 RT 50 New 113+25 - 114+25 RT 100 New 114+75 - 117+25 RT 250 New W10+00 - W12+00 LT 200 New Route 36 12+00 - 14+50 LT 250 New Ogden Telephone Telephone (OH) 62+00 - 69+50 RT 750 Relocation Route 31 68+25 - 90+00 LT 2175 Relocation 90+00 - 130+00 LT 4000 Relocation W6+85 - W12+00 LT 515 Relocation Route 36 7+50-9+50 RT 200 Relocation 12+00-15+00 RT 300 Relocation 15+00 - 20+00 LT 500 Relocation Telephone (UG) 97+25 - 98+00 LT 75 Relocation Frontier Telephone Telephone (OH) 18+00 – 21+00 LT 300 Relocation Time Warner Cable Cable (OH) 62+00 - 69+50 RT 750 Relocation Route 31 68+25 - 90+00 LT 2175 Relocation 90+00 - 130+00 LT 4000 Relocation W6+85 - W12+00 LT 515 Relocation Route 36 7+50 - 9+50 RT 200 Relocation 12+00 - 15+00 RT 300 Relocation 15+00 - 20+00 LT 500 Relocation
3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities
There are no railroads within the project limits.
3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements
Refer to Chapter 4 for complete discussion.
3.3.4.1. Landscape Development and Other Aesthetics Improvements
The landscape in the areas west of the Route 531 terminus and west of Route 36 along the north side of Route 31 will be impacted the most. Six houses will be demolished as a result of the proposed access management. As a result, existing vegetation within the grading limits will be removed. Alternative 5 will result in the greatest impact to the landscape due to additional tree and shrub removals at the southwest corner of Route 531/Route 36 and the proposed grading requirements for Route 531 to go under a Route 36 bridge.
Landscape development for all alternatives will consist of: protecting trees outside the grading limits during construction with barrier fencing, providing tree care, replacement trees and shrub plantings, new tree and shrub plantings, placing topsoil and turf establishment. West of Route 36, trees and shrubs will be planted, where appropriate, to screen the road from the remaining houses on the north side of Route 31. Alternative 5 will also include consideration of aesthetic treatments for the bridge appropriate to its context.
3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements
Potential environmental enhancements that may be proposed as part of this project are as follows:
• The proposed bridge over Route 531 (Alt. 5) may use facade treatments to highlight the entrance to the rural arterial corridor. • A future multi-use trail was evaluated to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians as a shared facility, would traverse the area along the south side of Route 31, immediately north of Northampton
3-55 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Park, located behind a rather wide right-of-way. Different multi-use trail options were evaluated between Salmon Creek Road and Route 36 including: off-road directional trails on both the north and south side; off-road multi directional trail on the south side; and an on-street bike route using the roadway shoulder. Three distinct options, Options 1 through Options 3 were developed, which addressed these accommodations to varying degrees. These alternatives were shared with interested stakeholders from the area at a Public Workshop held on May 17, 2011 with feedback on the three (3) multi-use trail options documented.
The State evaluated all of the potential users input and which option would best meet their various needs. A lower cost option with only a subgrade earthwork platform was considered, but overall, all the options were removed due to considerable environmental costs/impacts that outweighed the benefits. Costs included impacts to the creek, wetlands, endangered species, farmland and old growth woodland. It was concluded that the impact costs far exceeded the need and in addition, no stakeholder, in particular the Town, was willing to assume the future trail maintenance jurisdiction; so for these impacts, economic and maintenance reasons the trail was dismissed from further consideration.
3.3.5. Miscellaneous.
NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA)
Pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPAA).
To the extent practicable this project has met the relevant criteria as described in the ECL 6017. The Smart Growth screening Tool was used to assess the project’s Consistency and alignment with the relevant Smart Growth criteria; the tool was completed by the Region’s Planning Management group of and reflects the current project scope.
Other Miscellaneous Information
Currently, there are no further items of concern or enhancements to be addressed; the following item was evaluated and discussed as part of the project, but there are no proposed improvements at this time: • Snowmobile trail enhancements within the project study area – the NYSDOT held a Public Information meeting and received comments from the Hilton Sno-Flyers snowmobile club. One of their interests was developing a snowmobile corridor at Salmon Creek, which would require the use of NYSDOT Right-of-Way at the Route 31 Salmon Creek culvert crossing. These comments were taken into consideration; however based on additional impacts and NYSDOT ROW access restrictions to snowmobilers, no enhancements are being proposed at this time.
3-56 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the social, economic and environmental issues associated with the proposed project, considering feasible Alternatives 2, 3, 5 and the Null condition. This project proposes a roadway at- grade intersection or an interchange at the Route 531 Terminus along with extension of the Route 531 alignment to the west where it joins with existing Route 31, using a curve to the left (westbound) to form a continuous east west alignment. The project also includes the Route 31 Improvements along a one mile segment in the Towns of Ogden and Sweden, Monroe County, New York where the alignments transition to existing Route 31. The project alternatives include a Conventional Signalized intersection (Alternative 2), a Signalized Superstreet crossover (Alternative 3) and a Full Diamond interchange (Alternative 5) at Route 531 / Route 36 Terminus. All three (3) alternatives for the Terminus have essentially the same improvements for Route 31. These include associated roadway improvements to Route 36 and intersection and traffic calming amenities along Route 31. Route 31 will receive a continuous two way left turn lane (CTWLTL) between Salmon Creek Road and Gallup Road with left turn lanes at these two intersections. The Gallup/Hubbell Road intersections with Route 31 will be modified geometrically with the alignments enhanced to improve intersection sight distance and provide traffic calming features along this segment. Traffic calming features will help provide a transition from the Route 531 expressway to the Route 31 two lane rural arterial.
4.1.1 Environmental Classification and Lead Agencies
4.1.1.1 NEPA Classification
Under the alternatives, this project is classified as a NEPA Class III action in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115. The Federal Highway Administration is the lead agency for the NEPA process; this will follow the Class III procedure under the NYSDOT Environmental Action Plan and the Project Development Manual (PDM). Class III actions require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the appropriate actions and environmental documentation.
This environmental assessment has evaluated the foreseeable project impacts related to the project location, community and the alternatives. Relevant impacts evaluated in this report include social and economic impacts; land use and environmental justice; historic and archaeological impacts; hazardous waste and asbestos; construction impacts; wetland, visual impacts, farmland and water quality issues.
Based on this draft evaluation it is anticipated that this project will not have any significant effects on the environment.
It is recommended that this project be progressed with FHWA concurrence with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If there is no objection to these findings, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be prepared.
4.1.1.2 SEQR Classification and Lead Agencies
The Department has determined that this project is a SEQR Non-Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR Part 15 - Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act. SEQR Non-Type II projects include actions for which the environmental impacts are not clearly established and require an Environmental Assessment (EA).
4-1 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
NYSDOT is the SEQR lead agency and as lead agency will progress the project as SEQR Non- Type II (EA) in accordance with 17 NYCRR Part 15, because the recommended build alternatives have the potential to cause environmental impacts and the following potential impacts preclude a SEQRA Type II designation: • d (1) the acquisition of occupied dwellings; • 15.14(d) (6) – The structure at 3360 Brockport-Spencerport Road is National Register Eligible, a Type II action has “no effect on any district, site, structure or object that is listed, or may be eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places.” This project has potential effects to this structure; • d (7i) impacts of potentially 0.62 to 0.68 acres to freshwater wetlands depending on the alternative selected; • d (7 iii) conversion of Prime or unique agricultural land; • d (7 iv) the need to acquire more than one acre in an agricultural district.
Even though there are impacts and based on this environmental assessment, it is anticipated that this project will not have any significant affects on the environment. It is recommended that this project be progressed with a Determination of No Significant Effect (DONSE).
4.1.2 Coordination with Agencies
The previous studies and reports for this road segment are as follows: • Major Investment Study – The Route 531/Brockport-Rochester Corridor, May 1997- Technical & Management Proposal; • Major Investment Study – Route 531/Brockport-Rochester Corridor, February 2000-Final Summary Report; • Technical Memorandum – Route 531 Extension Study, PIN 4531.05 (Washington St. to Redman Road), April 2010
This project was a result of the Route 531 Extension Study Scoping Phase completed in April 2010. The Route 531 Extension Study (PIN 4531.05) was to consider improvements to the 6.5 mile long corridor that would provide for the existing and projected traffic demand and address highway safety. During the scoping phase of that project, the results of the traffic and accident analysis indicated that in the future the existing Route 31 traffic would continue to operate at or near capacity during the commuter peak hours.
At the conclusion of the scoping phase it was determined that an extension of Route 531 was not viable but rather location-specific improvements developed as a result of the scoping phase should be progressed. Most importantly, these included safety and capacity improvements to the Route 531 Terminus, which was the highest priority, within the corridor. Ultimately the Route 531 Extension Project Scoping Report was concluded as a Technical Memorandum.
The NYSDOT informed the agencies indicated below regarding this action.
4.1.2.1 NEPA Cooperating and Participating Agencies
The following agencies have been identified as Cooperating Agencies in accordance with 23 CFR 771:
Cooperating Agencies US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) US Environmental Protection Agency US Fish and Wildlife US Department of Agriculture New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
4-2 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation – State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Participating Agencies Monroe County Town of Sweden Town of Ogden
SEQR Involved and Interested Agencies
Input on the action was also sought from other interested local and regional agencies, municipal officials, and organized stakeholder interest groups. A list of these groups follows:
Route 531 Interested Parties and Public Involvement Program Participants Affiliation Issues Town of Ogden Building Dept. LCP and Zoning compliance, trends and projection, impacts Monroe County Planning Dept. Trends and projections, compliance with regional plans Town of Sweden Supervisor LCP and Zoning compliance, trends and projection, impacts Ogden and Sweden EMS Providers Response times, emergency access routes, accidents/safety Ogden and Sweden Police Departments Response times, emergency access routes, accidents/safety Monroe County Recreational Dept Impact on passive and recreational resources and opportunities Ogden and Sweden DPW Existing and future roadway maintenance and improvements Spencerport and Brockport School Dept. Districts Impacts on existing and future school projections and plans Ogden and Sweden Supervisors General town growth and development issues GTC Model socio-economic trends and projections
A summary of the local and regional public participation efforts is included in the Appendix D.
4.2 Social
The Route 531 Terminus Improvements study area has been defined by the area of direct impact of the alternatives meeting the projects purpose and needs. Generally this is the area within and along the present right-of-way including adjacent properties, businesses and communities within the general limits of the alternatives being considered. To determine the overall project study area for the purpose of a social and economic analysis the following concerns were considered:
• where potential localized impacts of the project may take place; • how the proposed project might affect the local and regional economy; • how the project might alter travel patterns due to the elimination of peak hour congestion at Route 531/Route 36/Route 31.
The proposed Route 531 Terminus Improvements study area for the Social and Environmental affects includes the following geographic areas:
• The properties adjacent to the existing Route 531 Terminus and immediate Route 31 and Route 36 corridor • The Town of Sweden • The Town of Ogden • Monroe County for overall comparisons
The purpose of this section is to discuss the social environment of the project study area and evaluate the potential social affects of the build alternatives. This project involves the Route 531 Terminus at the
4-3 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
intersection with Route 36 and the Route 31 corridor approximately 1 mile west of the Route 531/Route 36 intersection. The area is rural and lightly developed in the towns of Ogden and Sweden. With the exception of the no-build alternative, each alternative will involve reconstructing the existing terminus and replacing it with either an at-grade intersection (Alternatives 2 & 3) or a Full Diamond grade separated interchange (Alternative 5). Route 36 will receive a new at-grade intersection or bridge, spanning the Route 531 expressway that will be located at the current Route 531/Route 36 intersection. This will require minor to substantial approach work along Route 36 (depending on the alternatives) including minor profile improvements to provide adequate stopping sight distance under the two at-grade alternatives to substantial earthwork to provide the elevation change for a new grade-separated bridge.
The two at-grade alternatives will replace the existing Route 531/Route 36 ‘T’ type intersection with a conventional signalized four-leg intersection or a signalized superstreet median crossover. Under the Full Diamond Interchange alternative the Route 531 mainline will be depressed approximately 10 to 12 ft with new exit/entrance ramps leading up to Route 36. All alternatives will provide a direct transition from Route 531 to Route 31 near Salmon Creek, with the existing Route 31, between Salmon Creek and the Route 31/Route 36 intersection modified to a Cul-de-Sac. The remainder of Route 31 west of Salmon Creek will essentially be reconstructed and/or rehabilitated on existing alignment with intersection modifications to Hubbell, Gallup and Salmon Creek Road.
What follows is a discussion and analysis of five key social factors (a through e):
(a) Changes in the neighborhood or community cohesion
The rural neighborhoods in the immediate vicinity of the Route 531 terminus and west of Route 36 along Route 31 will be somewhat affected by project construction due to the acquisition of six residential properties along the north side of Route 31 between Gallup Road and Route 36. The approximate study area of the project, as illustrated in Exhibit 1.2.1-1, show the northern limit as the abutting properties along Route 31; the southern limit as Northampton Park; the western limit as Salmon Creek Road a main entrance to the Park; and the eastern limit as the Route 531 Terminus.
Land use adjacent to the project corridor is dominated by agricultural fields on the north and Northampton Park on the south with concise residential areas and one commercial facility at the intersection of Route 31/Route 36. Within the project limits, Northampton Park is the predominant feature which abuts the corridor along the south side of Route 31, which includes a snow ski hill, toboggan hill, running/skiing cross-country trails and horse trails with park access from Hubbell Road and Salmon Creek Road along Route 31. Northampton Park is primarily a dense wooded area with Salmon Creek and Spring Creek winding through the woods. Most park activities are typically located 500 ft to 1,000 ft away from Route 31.
Residential properties are dispersed amongst the agricultural fields along the north side of Route 31. These properties consist of two groupings of residential lots, one across from Hubbell Road consisting of five lots and three homes and another 1,600’ further to the east, just west of Salmon Creek which consists of three lots and three homes. Further to the east as you approach Route 36 the cluster of eleven homes will remain with access provided by the old Route 31 cul-de-sac. This group includes the historic eligible home which is the westerly most home next to Salmon Creek.
The relocation of these two groupings of homes (six relocations) will not have an impact on community cohesion as these locations are scattered residential properties within a primarily agricultural setting. However, this will have an impact to the current residential owners that is associated with relocation. There are no effects on the established neighborhoods to the west in the area of Salmon Creek Road along with a community of homes in the general vicinity of the Route 31/Route 36 intersection. The initial Real Estate Relocation Assessment has identified numerous similar properties available for the relocations in the general project vicinity.
The proposed road construction under all three (3) alternatives is not expected to have a significant impact on the character or the stability of the neighborhoods in the project area and the Towns of
4-4 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Ogden and Sweden. A change in land-use will occur north of Route 31 where six (6) residential properties will be eliminated and potentially converted back to rural agricultural land use. These six properties are in two isolated locations, versus neighborhoods, and the project will not negatively affect established neighborhoods to the east and west. The project improvements will positively affect the neighborhoods in the general vicinity of the Route 31/Route 36 intersection by “moving” the majority of through traffic away from the intersection along with significantly reducing accidents and delays associated with the present terminus thereby increasing safety and decreasing traffic delays and vehicle pollution.
(b) Changes in travel patterns and accessibility
Under the No build alternative, there would be no change to the travel patterns or access from the current conditions; although traffic operations would continue to deteriorate with increased delay, congestion and accidents during peak traffic periods.
Under the three (3) build alternatives, traffic would directly transition from Route 531 to Route 31, eliminating the right turn, left turn movement currently required at the Route 36 and Route 31 intersection, respectively. The Route 36/Route 31 intersection would redirect Route 31 traffic (east of Route 36) to/from the relocated Route 31/Route 531 alignment to the south along Route 36. A cul-de- sac would be placed on Route 31 west of Route 36 to provide access to eleven homes in the area. This would eliminate Route 31’s current east-west connection, but in doing so, would still provide local access to the properties along the north side of Route 31 in this area.
The Route 31 east-west traffic will now have to proceed along Route 36 to access the new Route 31/Route 531 alignment by way of one of the at-grade intersections or the grade separated interchange to continue along Route 31. Roadway shoulders will be widened to allow better access to the community for pedestrians and bicyclists within the project corridor. It is also anticipated that all build alternatives will induce some traffic (100 – 200 vph) back to Route 531 regarding traffic that currently exits Route 531 at Union Street in the PM peak hour, and then travels Route 31 to avoid the queue, congestion and accidents at the present terminus. Overall the changes in travel patterns involve “relocating” the Route 531/Route 31 mainline traffic away from Route 31 for approximately 2,000’ west of Route 36, and “inducing” some of the Route 531 traffic which currently avoids the present Route 531/Route 36 terminus (mostly PM peak hour) back to Route 531 in lieu of exiting at Route 259-Union Street. These changes are not expected to have an impact on overall travel patterns and accessibility.
(c) Impact on school districts, recreation areas, churches, businesses, police and fire protection
There are no schools within the immediate area; however the Brockport Central School District and Spencerport Central Schools were consulted to determine whether the project would impact existing and or planned bus routes. During construction the school bus routes will typically continue to utilize existing roadways including Route 31, Route 36 and other area roadways. Completion of the project is expected to improve overall mobility and safety along Route 31 which is beneficial to the general public as well as the school busing systems. The project will be staged using a combination of typically on-site detours (traffic maintained) and an off-site detour (closing Route 531 from Union Street to Washington Street) for construction in the immediate area of the Route 531/Route 36 intersection. The duration is dependent on the alternative however will be minimized as practicably as possible. Generally traffic will be maintained on-site in particular for Route 31 (west of Route 36) where only minor short term staging is required for the tie in and on Route 36 excluding the off-site detour. A communication plan will be used to coordinate all activities with agencies during construction. No adverse impacts are expected after the completion of the project.
Northampton Park is a Monroe County park located on the south side of Route 31 for a majority of the project corridor. Salmon Creek Road and Colby Street currently serve as the main entrances to the park with a secondary entrance off Hubbell Road. A playground, ski and sledding hill are located in the park south of Route 31 along Hubbell Road. In addition, multiple trails, sporting fields and picnic
4-5 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
facilities are located within the park south of Route 31. In general the park is heavily screened from Route 31 by wooded areas. Enhancements to the park entrances will be provided by adding left turn lanes or a continuous two way left turn lane for turning into or exiting the park entrance roads. Access to the park via Salmon Creek and Hubbell Road will be temporarily interrupted during construction (short duration), however in the long term the safety at the Route 31 intersections is expected to be improved.
There are no churches located within the project study area or within close proximity. The build alternative is not expected to have any negative impacts on area churches and other places of religious activities.
As previously mentioned, the only business located within the project study area is the M&M MiniMart Store located at the intersection of Route 31 and Route 36. This establishment is likely to experience minor impacts due to construction activity and will lose some pass-by shoppers, but it is not expected to have any significant long-term negative impacts. Ingress and egress to the site will be improved via rehabilitated driveway curb cuts and with Route 36 / County Route 212 having free flow conditions while Route 31 has stopped conditions, access will be slightly easier to this northeast site by heading north on Route 36 with a right hand turn into the Mini-Mart site.
The road reconstruction will have no long-term negative impact on emergency services once the project is completed. Overall the project is expected to benefit emergency responders by improving mobility and safety. Response times will most likely be reduced as a result of the Route 531 terminus improvements as travel distance will be less, congestion will be significantly reduced, accidents will be reduced and the two (highly congested) intersection maneuvers at Routes 531/36/31 will be eliminated. Service routes for emergency vehicles will be coordinated with, maintained and open at all times during construction. The use of an off-site detour is being considered and would require additional evaluation and public input before implementation.
(d) Impacts of alternatives on highway and traffic and safety as well as on overall public safety
The Route 531 intersection with Route 36 and the four (4) intersections along Route 31 have been identified by the Route 531 Extension Study and supplemental update as having higher accident rates than the statewide average. The high level of accidents in these areas has been attributed to congestion, capacity deficiencies and turning movements related to the current terminus movement through the Route 36 and Route 31 intersections and lack of turning lanes along Route 31 at the side street intersections. Safety considerations and accident history are further discussed in Section 2.3.1.8.
The two at-grade alternatives will provide sufficient traffic signal operation and storage room for queued vehicles at the intersection of Route 531 and Route 36. This increased storage room will improve traffic flow during peak hour commutes by preventing back-ups along Route 531. Under the grade-separated interchange alternative (Alternative 5) the queue will essentially be eliminated as the Route 531 traffic will transition directly to Route 31 through the interchange without maneuvering through an intersection or traffic signal. The flow of traffic will also be improved with advanced signing to allow westbound traffic to maneuver into the appropriate lanes in advance of the intersection or interchange.
The direct connection of Route 531 to Route 31 (west of Route 36) will eliminate conflicts and persistent delays, especially for westbound peak hour vehicles which experience the highest accident rates in the corridor. This includes the termination of Route 31 west of Route 36 to allow for the Route 31 to Route 531 transition. The rerouting of the Route 531 traffic will significantly reduce congestion and improve the safety and flow of traffic at the Route 531 Terminus.
Route 31 improvements will serve to reduce the number of accidents and improve the flow of traffic at the intersections of Hubbell, Gallup & Salmon Creek Road along Route 31. The addition of intersection channelization, portions of Route 31 will include a raised median between Route 36 and
4-6 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Gallup Road and a continuous two way left turn lane between Gallup and Salmon Creek Road is expected to improve overall traffic flow and safety through this corridor.
Pedestrians are still prohibited on Route 531 by state law. There are currently no sidewalks along Route 31 or Route 36 within the project limits with pedestrians and bicyclists using the paved shoulders along these routes. Route 31 is also Bike Route 5, a signed on-road bicycle route across New York State. All of the feasible alternatives will widen the shoulders to a minimum of 8 feet in both directions along Route 31/Bike Route 5 and Route 36, within the project limits, to improve conditions for bicycle and pedestrian travel. At the Route 31 / Route 36 intersection, it has been determined that sidewalks are warranted due to the density of residential houses, two bus stops and the location of the M&M Minimart Convenience Store at the northeast corner of the intersection. For all of the feasible alternatives, sidewalk will be provided on both sides of Route 36, north of Route 31 to the northern project limits, and along both sides of Route 31, east of Route 36 extending to the intersection with Blackburn Knoll on the north side and approximately 650 feet on the south side.
All of the feasible alternatives have an alternative specific approach to pedestrian and bicycle travel at the new terminus. In general, the new terminus will provide a less direct movement for Route 31/Bike Route 5 bicyclists and pedestrians by eliminating the Route 31/Bike Route 5 through movement at Route 36 and requiring left and right turn movements on to Route 36 to continue east and west on Route 31/Bike Route 5.
(e) General social groups benefitted or harmed
This project has been examined for its potential impact on minority and low income areas. All projects are evaluated to ensure that there is not a disproportionately high or adverse impact on minority or low income population. It has been determined that all of the Build Alternatives will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or low-income populations.
This conclusion is based on the 2010 census data that demonstrates that the percentage of minorities in the vicinity of the project (2.21%) is less than that for the Towns of Sweden and Ogden overall (3.23%). This data also shows that the mean household income does not fall in an Above Average Low-Income Population by Census Tract, 2010. The Department of Health and Human Resources reports the poverty guideline as being $22,050 for 2010. The 2010 Census also revealed 13.3% and 2.7% of household within the Towns of Sweden and Ogden, of having an income below the poverty threshold. The residents in the project area are therefore not part of a disproportionately high low- income population nor will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effect on minority or low-income population.
Aspects of the project will improve conditions for local residents, transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists; these should also result in improvements for the elderly.
In summary the project will have no affect or significant impact on the following community types:
• neighborhood or community cohesion • travel patterns and accessibility • school districts, recreation areas, churches, businesses and fire protection • highway, traffic and safety and overall public safety • general social groups • land use or demographics
4-7 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
4.2.1 Land Use
4.2.1.1 Demographics and Affected Population
None of the build alternatives will have a significant effect on existing land use within the project area; however six (6) homes will be acquired along the north side of Route 31 with the land use converted back to an agricultural setting or for highway purposes.
Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Commission (GFLRPC) together with the Genesee Transportation Council evaluates growth trends throughout the region. Projections are made for commercial, industrial and residential development potential as well as employment growth in various sectors. The Study Area employment projections for 2035 by the Monroe County Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) indicate only a small amount of growth (1,613 jobs or 15% increase) over the next 25 years. Retail employment, however, is projected to decline by 174 jobs within the study area.
As discussed in section 4.2.3 below, the project is not located in an Environmental Justice Area. The project study area is predominately rural agriculture, parkland and lightly developed with a mixed use of residential and agricultural farmland along the north side with single family homes at irregular intervals on Route 31 and wooded unoccupied park land along the south side.
Exhibit 4.2.1-1 Above Average Low-Income Population
4-8 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Summary Regarding Household Income and Employment Trends
The project corridor is not located in an Above Average Concentration of Low-income Population as illustrated in Exhibit 4.2.1-1 above. Overall the project improvements are not expected to affect the areas household income or employment trends.
4.2.1.2 Comprehensive Plans and Zoning
Town of Sweden & Village of Brockport Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Brockport and Town of Sweden (combined) was updated in 2002 and amended on May 3, 2005. The Comprehensive Plan is the municipality's official policy document that serves as a basis for its development. It includes elements addressing land use trends and policies, transportation improvements, public utilities improvements, public parks and recreation, and other functional community planning and development information.
Brockport-Sweden LCP Goals and Policies - The Comprehensive Plan creates thirteen (13) functional areas under six (6) broad functional categories for which goals and actions are identified. These goals and actions are not prioritized but address:
Housing and Residential Land Use:
. Action 2.b) – Discourage sprawl and strip development in order to retain scenic vistas and the community’s rural character. . Action 2.g) – Discourage the conversion of local residential roads into through roads.
The Economy and Associated Land Uses:
. D-2.d) – Discourage “strip commercial” development. . D-2.h) – In planning for future residential neighborhoods, make provisions for suitable neighborhood commercial center in appropriate locations. . D-3.1.a) – Stimulating farming activities should take precedence over other uses in areas used for agriculture as provided for in the Town’s “right-to-farm” local law. . D-3.2.a) – Encourage the State, County, and farmers to renew, sustain and expand the Agricultural Districts under the New York Agricultural Districts Law. . D-3.2.d) – Do not extend water and sewer lines into or through areas being actively used for agriculture and further, limit the placement of other infrastructure, such as highways and tap-ins to water and sewer lines, which would encourage growth and development in areas designated for agricultural use. . D-3.2.e) – Establish a preset fee for removing land from agricultural district to development use.
Industrial and Commercial Development:
. D-4.1.a) – Encourage industrial development through tax incentives. . D-4.1.e) - Plan for new industrial development to avoid conflicts with residential neighborhoods. . D-4.2.a) – Contain commercial development along Route 31 within a specified area. . D-4.2.e) – Ensure adequate circulation among commercial plazas, for automobile and pedestrian traffic.
Transportation:
Goal – To provide a transportation system that minimizes congestion and is safe, efficient, convenient and environmentally responsible.
4-9 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Public Utilities, Facilities, and Services:
. F.2.1.a) – Limit extensions of water and sewer utilities located, construction, and maintained in accordance with goals and objectives of this plan.
Brockport-Sweden LCP Future Land Use Plan - The Future Land Use Maps (Figures 21 and 22 of the LCP) show the community’s “preferred vision” or “priority” land uses for the twenty-year planning period.
. Conservation: Two areas are identified by the Monroe County Preservation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (PESA) Report for acquisition and protection: o The Sweden 7 Wetland (800 Acres) is a State Class II scrub, scrub deciduous wetland located between Swamp Road and Beadle Road o HO-9 (450 Acres) is four contiguous wetlands along the north branch of Black Creek. It is located on the east and west sides of West Sweden Road south of White Road. . Agriculture: Continued agricultural use is recommended for land within the two Monroe County Agricultural Districts except where other non-residential uses are already established.
. Rural Residential: A large parcel of land currently zoned B-3 commercial recreation is listed as number 2 on Figure 24 of the LCP. The LCP recommends that the Town Board consider rezoning this parcel to R1-2 One Family Residential.
. General Business: The Future Zoning Map for the Town of Sweden (Figure 24 of the LCP) proposes most commercial and residential zoning districts to be located along the existing Route 31 corridor.
Town of Ogden Comprehensive Plan, 2003
The Ogden Comprehensive Plan was adopted on February 13, 2003 by the Town Council under Resolution #78. The top five prioritized issues were the following:
. Maintain the rural character of our community . Protect and preserve the natural, scenic and historic attributes of our community . Promote orderly balanced commercial, business and residential development . Preserve woodlands . Preserve farmlands
According to the Ogden plan, the extension of NYS Route 531 to Washington Street (SR 36) has had the most significant impact on development in Ogden. The new highway (built in the mid-1990s) brought a surge of growth and development in town, and several commercial and industrial developments have been constructed or are proposed in the eastern section of Ogden. The highway has also made the town more accessible to commuters traveling to the City of Rochester and other employment centers in Monroe County.
The Town of Ogden Future Land Use Map identified 8 categories including: Rural Agriculture, Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial, Public Services, Recreation and Parks, Trails, and Heritage Commercial Area. Much of the future industrial use is located in close proximity to Route 531, which is and will continue to be an excellent transportation resource for industrial growth. The Heritage Commercial Area anticipates that commercial development in the future will extend south of the village along S. Union Street (Rt. 259) beyond Routes 31 and 531, thereby connecting the village to the town’s community center.
Village of Spencerport Comprehensive Plan, Revised 2002
The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to formulate goals for the future physical development of the community, to provide a healthful and pleasant living environment, and to offer proposals designed to attain these goals. The plan is designed to further the achievements of the following community goals:
4-10 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
. To retain the residential character of the community while helping to provide for housing needs of the expected population growth of the town. . To strengthen the economic and fiscal health of the village. . To provide the public services and facilities that efficiently and economically meet current and anticipated needs of the citizens and public. . To support recreational facilities, open space and community services for a growing population. . To encourage a sense of identify and pride in the village. . To require high standards of quality and appearance for existing and future development, both public and private. . To encourage and promote broad citizen participation in aspects of community life.
Development within the Town of Ogden has significant impact on the Village of Spencerport. Population in Spencerport has fluctuated the past 20 years from 3,424 in 1980 to 3,606 in 1990, 3,559 in 2000 and 3,601 in 2010. The radial pattern of the “suburban ring” has been extended through Spencerport with the completion of Route 531. The manufacturing centers and regional trading centers are now easily reached from Spencerport. This project does not preclude residential development and opportunities for the Spencerport Business District to serve an expanded area.
Erie Canal Corridor Plan: Genesee/Finger Lakes Region, 1993
This plan was completed in 1993 and the purpose of the report was to evaluate the potential of this segment of the Erie Canal for tourism, conservation, and recreation. Among the primary goals were to enhance tourism and economic development opportunities within the canal corridor. The plan was followed up by the Brockport Canal Front Master Plan in 1998.
Brockport Canal Master Plan, August 1998
This plan provides a realistic vision that builds off the success of Brockport’s central business district and positions the canal as a prominent regional cultural and recreational resource. The plan identifies proposed improvement zones to be implemented in phases including:
. Phase 1 – Canal Front Walk . Phase 2 – Harvester Public Square . Phase 3 – Erie Canal Greenway Trail . Phase 4 – Historic Old Towne . Phase 5 – Old Town Park . Phase 6 – Corbett Community Park
None of these improvements directly impact the existing or potential future alternative Route 531 Terminus Improvements.
The project build alternatives are compatible with the Town and county master plans and the project objectives are consistent with the Town of Sweden’s and Town of Ogden’s Comprehensive Development Plan. In addition, the project is compatible with Technical Memorandum for PIN 4531.05 Route 531 Extension Study and the majority of the Route 531 terminus recommendations in the Route 531 Extension Study have been incorporated into the proposed project.
4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
4.2.2.1 Community Cohesion
As discussed in section 4.2, the land use adjacent to the project corridor is dominated by agricultural fields on the north and Northampton Park on the south with concise residential areas located amongst the agricultural fields along the north side of Route 31 versus neighborhoods. Between Gallup Road and Salmon Creek, within the 4,600 ft agricultural segment on Route 31, there are six (6) residential properties
4-11 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
that will be relocated to provide right-of-way without access for safety purposes. The larger or more typical rural neighborhood residential settings west of Gallup Road and east of Salmon Creek and around the Route 31/Route 36 intersection will remain.
The project will not divide neighborhoods, isolate part of a neighborhood, generate new development or otherwise affect community cohesion. The age and ethnic background of the affected population is of a similar composition as the rest of the Town of Ogden. All of the occupied dwellings to be acquired are owner-occupied single family units and do not contain a disproportionate number of minority or low-income populations.
The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and relocation resources are available to all residential relocates without discrimination.
4.2.2.2 Home and Business Relocations
The project alternatives will require the acquisition and removal of six (6) occupied residences; however, these structures are located in two (2) pockets of residential properties within the aforementioned agricultural setting. Overall, the effects of this project will not cause adverse impacts upon neighborhood character and stability. The DOT relocation process will provide relocation assistance for finding comparable housing and review all available property within a 50-mile radius of the project as possible relocations sites for each residence. No businesses will be relocated. The review of possible relocation sites has identified numerous residential properties in the general area that are similar and potentially available.
4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed
4.2.3.1 Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups
A review of US Census data for Monroe County and the Towns of Ogden and Sweden indicates that there is no significant concentration of elderly or disabled persons in the project area. For significant elderly, the threshold is 12% of a census tract, as such, no impacts are anticipated.
4.2.3.2 Transit Dependent, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists
Transit dependent individuals may continue to use the existing transit bus stops along Route 31 since they will be retained; however at the Route 31/Route 36 intersection, the east bound stop on Route 31 will be relocated from the west side of the intersection to the east side of the intersection.
Pedestrians are still prohibited on Route 531 by state law. There are currently no sidewalks along Route 31 or Route 36 within the project limits. Pedestrians and bicyclists use the paved shoulders along these routes. Route 31 is also Bike Route 5, a signed on-road bicycle route across New York State. All of the feasible alternatives will widen the shoulders to a minimum of 8 feet in both directions along Route 31/Bike Route 5 and Route 36, within the project limits, to improve the conditions for bicycle and pedestrian travel. At the Route 31 / Route 36 intersection, it has been determined that sidewalks are warranted due to the density of residential houses, two bus stops and the location of the M&M Minimart Convenience Store at the northeast corner of the intersection. For all of the feasible alternatives, sidewalk will be provided on both sides of Route 36, north of Route 31 to the northern project limits, and along both sides of Route 31, east of Route 36 extending to the intersection with Blackburn Knoll on the north side and approximately 650 feet on the south side. All of the feasible alternatives have an alternative specific approach to pedestrian and bicycle travel at the new terminus. In general, the new terminus will provide a less direct movement for Route 31/Bike Route 5 bicyclists and pedestrians by eliminating the Route 31/Bike Route 5 through movement at Route 36 and requiring left and right turn movements on to Route 36 to continue east and west on Route 31/Bike Route 5.
4-12 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Overall the project improvements are not expected to negatively impact transit dependent individuals, pedestrians or bicyclists but conversely will provide access and safety improvements for these users.
4.2.3.3 Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice)
Potential EJ Areas are 2010 US Census block groups of 250 to 500 households each that, in the 2010 Census, had populations that met or exceeded at least one of the following statistical thresholds for significance agreed upon by FHWA and the NYSDOT for Region 4:
• The FHWA poverty threshold is 1255 individuals per tract; the exception is greater than 10% of a rural tract having a population less than 1255 individuals; • For significant minority, the threshold is greater than 14.5% for a rural community and 29% for urban;
Urban and rural designations for census block groups were established by the U.S. Census Bureau. This project is not located in or near an environmental justice area as defined above and illustrated in Exhibit 4.2.3-1 below.
Exhibit 4.2.3-1 Title VI – Environmental Justice FHWA significant thresholds
4-13 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship
4.2.4.1 School Districts
The proposed project is within the Brockport Central School District (BCSD) and Spencerport Central Schools (SCS). There are no schools or school properties within or near the project corridor. Brockport Central School District is located approximately three miles northwest from the project while the Spencerport Central Schools are located approximately three miles to the east.
Both schools are served by their respective School Bus Systems located on Owen Road in Brockport (BCSD) and Route 31 in Spencerport (SCS), both two to three miles away from the project. It is not expected that there would be any long term adverse impacts to the school or bus operations. During construction there may be delays for motorists traveling thru the corridor during the Route 531 closure (Union Street to Washington Street), however the closure duration will be minimized to the extent possible and advance notice and coordination activities will be performed during construction. (Note: The detailed Traffic Maintenance Plans for construction will be further reviewed in the Final Design Phase and will include coordination with MCDOT, Monroe County Parks, Towns of Sweden and Ogden, school districts and emergency service providers).
Temporary on-site detours will be used during construction to maintain Route 31 east-west through the project area, Route 36 traffic and Route 531 traffic (excluding the Route 531 closure duration). The construction impacts would be temporary, and through close coordination we expect the impacts to be relatively minor. In the long-term, effects will be positive with improved safety (accident reductions) and improved circulation (reduced delay). School Districts will be kept apprised of the construction operations and schedule during construction.
4.2.4.2 Recreational Areas
The project corridor runs along the north side of Northampton Park in the Towns of Sweden and Ogden, which offers skiing, sledding hills, various hiking trails, an on-site educational farm and hosts the Monroe County Fair. Overall the project improvements do not impact the park (excluding Alternative 5) with the work confined to the existing highway ROW. Additionally it should be noted that the north side of the park adjacent to Route 31 is typically heavily wooded with few park activities taking place in the area. This serves as a natural buffer or screen between the park and Route 31.
It is expected that the project improvements, in particular the Route 31 improvement portion, will positively benefit the park by improving the safety at the Route 31 intersections with Hubbell Road and Salmon Creek Road, which are both County roads/park entrances. Under the Full Diamond Interchange (Alternative 5), there will be 0.70 acres acquired for ROW from the northeast corner of the park; the acquisition area is wooded, remotely separated from the major activities within the park and not currently utilized for park activities. This area is required, under this alternative, to fit the new diamond interchanges eastbound off ramp to Route 36 in the interchange’s southwest corner. Overall Alternatives 2 and 3 will not affect this recreational resource; however Alternative 5 requires a minor land taking from the park.
The Erie Canalway Trail is located approximately 0.55 miles to the north with direct access to Route 31 from Washington Street (CR 212) and Gallup Road. The trail is an important recreational resource for Western New York that runs parallel to Route 31/Bike Route 5. Statewide, the Erie Canalway Trail includes more than 365 miles of existing trails and is used by bicyclists, pedestrians, equestrians and cross-country skiers.
4.2.4.3 Places of Worship
There are no churches or places of worship within or near the project corridor and as such no impacts are anticipated.
4-14 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
4.3 Economic
4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies
Considerable local and regional background economic information was collected for the Route 531 Extension Study (Technical Memorandum) and was utilized for the review of possible local and regional economic effects. The project study area is located between the Villages of Brockport and Spencerport (where commercial activity is minimal) in an area that is rural in nature and characterized by open space/agriculture, Northampton Park and small clusters of homes. As such the local effects are minor with the primary results of the project being increased east-west mobility and improved safety for this major travel corridor. These improvements will help improve the regional economic climate through the mobility and safety improvements.
In reviewing the local effects, we note that there are no commercial or business properties being relocated as a result of the project; however the M&M MiniMart located on the northeast corner of the Route 31/36 intersection will experience a reduction in through traffic as a result of the project improvements. At the completion of this project, the traffic volumes at this intersection are expected to be reduced by 47% in the AM peak and 52% in the PM peak. This local market is the only commercial retail property in the project area.
The project will also require the relocation of the six (6) residences along Route 31 and unless these residences are relocated within the Town of Ogden, the Town may experience a minor loss in property tax receipts. In addition the ROW without access proposed along the north side of Route 31 from Salmon Creek to Gallup Road, may influence development along this segment in the future (access would be from Gallup Road), however this area is part of an agriculture district which is consistent with Town Zoning.
4.3.2 Business Districts
Effects on Business Districts
Correspondence with local officials has indicated that no established business districts exist within the project study area.
4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts
4.3.3.1 Established Businesses
The M&M MiniMart, formerly the Yellow Goose Market, is the single local retail business in the project study area, located in the northeast corner at the intersection of Route 31 and Route 36. The previous tenant, the Yellow Goose vacated this location in August 2013 with the M&M MiniMart reopening another Gas Convenient store under new management with a four (4) year lease. This project will not acquire this business. However, there will be a significant reduction in traffic volumes at the intersection where this business is located. Because this is the type of business that benefits from through traffic, a decrease in traffic volumes reduces the potential for non-destination customers.
4.3.3.2 Effects Assessment
There may be business impacts to the M&M MiniMart located at the intersection of Route 31 and Route 36 due to reductions in through traffic as a result of the proposed terminus improvements. In addition, temporary impacts would be expected during construction due to the potential for through traffic diversion or those seeking alternate routes to avoid the disruptions due to construction activities. However, the entrance to the M&M MiniMart will be maintained at all times during construction and will not limit their day to day business operations. The addition of sidewalks along the road frontage of this property combined with the improved operation of the intersection would make it easier for customers and pedestrians to access the convenient store.
4-15 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Although a decrease in non-destination customers may occur, it does not mean this business could not remain viable. Marketing and advertising efforts might draw business into the area. Two (2) similar convenient mini-mart gas stations, the Valero Western Mini-Mart and the Sunoco K-K Food Mart are located along the Route 31 corridor with similar settings and similar traffic volumes and appear to be operating successfully. The Western Mini-Mart located at the intersection of Manitou Road and Route 31 was bypassed in 1992 as a result of the original construction of Route 531 and has continued to stay in operation since.
4.4 Environmental
4.4.1 Wetlands
4.4.1.1 State Freshwater Wetlands
There are no NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated adjacent areas (100ft buffer) within the project area, as per the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Maps for Monroe County, Spencerport and Brockport quadrangles. A site visit was performed and confirmed the absence of State regulated wetlands. No further investigation is required regarding NYS Department and Environmental Conservation Law, and Article 24 is satisfied
4.4.1.2 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands
A wetlands assessment and delineation was conducted in the summer of 2007 to support the Route 531 Extension Study (Project Scoping Phase, completed 2010). The delineations were performed in a large study area of approximately 3,900 acres, which extended to west of Brockport. Forty-seven (47) wetlands were delineated in total, the majority of which are located outside the current project limits. At the conclusion of the scoping phase it was determined that an extension of Route 531 was not a viable project and the location-specific improvements developed as a result of the scoping phase were progressed. Prior to the field delineation of the study area, various maps and other sources of background information were reviewed. These included: NYS Freshwater Wetlands Map, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map and the Monroe County Soil Survey.
The 2007 wetland delineation identified three (3) wetlands within the current project area: the original Wetlands P, B & K have been renamed to Wetlands A, B and C in the subsequent discussions. Due to the passage of more than 5 years since the initial wetland delineation, Stantec re-delineated these wetlands in December 2012 during a re-assessment of a more focused project impact area, within 150 ft. of the edge of pavement on Route 31 between the current terminus of Route 531 and Salmon Creek Road as illustrated in Exhibit 4.4.1-1 below. The wetland delineation can be found in Separate Engineering Report 4. The delineation of federally-regulated wetlands was conducted in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2012 Regional Supplement for the North central and Northeast Region.
4-16 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 4.4.1 - 1 Wetlands Delineation Map
4-17 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
All wetlands have been taken into consideration when designing the project, and impacts have been minimized to the extent practicable. The three (3) proposed build alternatives will impact or have a wetland disturbance as follows:
• Alternative 2, Conventional Signalized Intersection – 0.68 acres (previously 1.63 acres); • Alternative 3, Signalized Superstreet Crossover – 0.70 acres (previously 1.63 acres); • Alternative 5, Full Diamond Interchange – 0.75 acres (previously 2.23 acres).
It has been determined that the delineated wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the NYSDEC under section 401 Water Quality Certification. NYSDOT will obtain the permit prior to commencement of project activities, and will adhere to any conditions or requirements. Further coordination with the regulatory agencies will be required during final design. Public Notification requirements will apply when the Department applies for the Letter of Permission.
USACE Section 404 Letter of Permission
A Section 404 Letter of Permission from the USACE will be required as well as a project-specific 401 Water Quality Certification from NYSDEC. Per regulatory Agency discussions, it is expected that this work would be authorized under the Letter of Permission, and that compensatory mitigation will be required where wetlands are to be impacted. The permit will be obtained during final design after further minimization is explored and impact extents are confirmed, it is not expected that the extent of impacts will dramatically change. Work will not commence until the permit is acquired, and work will adhere to any conditions set forth by the permit requirements.
4.4.1.3 Executive Order 11990 and Minimization of Impacts
An Individual Executive Order (EO) 11990 Wetland Finding will be necessary from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) stating and supporting that (1) there are no practicable alternatives to construction in the wetlands, and (2) the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetlands which may result from such use.
It is notable that Wetlands A and B are riparian wetlands associated with watercourses and linear in form. Impacts to Wetlands A and B are unavoidable unless through the no-build alternative. The watercourses associated with Wetlands A and B flow under the existing Route 31 making impacts to those wetlands inevitable under any design alternative, as they all require road widening over the stream to the north and/or to the south of the existing highway. Impacts to Wetland C were minimized by roadway profile revisions, which further reduced impacts to Wetlands A and B, as well.
Additional minimization of wetland impacts was achieved by eliminating the multi-use trail on both the north (farmlands) and south (forest, wetlands) sides of Route 31; removing abutment accommodations for future pedestrian bridge crossings at Salmon Creek and revising the road embankment sideslopes to 1 on 4 from 1 on 6. Further minimization efforts will be explored in final design, however it is anticipated that there will be no significant change in impacts.
4.4.1.4 Mitigation Summary
Wetland mitigation will be required for this project due to the proposed wetland impacts. The impacted wetlands consist of forested wetlands, shrub-scrub wetlands, and emergent wetlands as follows:
Build Alternative Forested Wetland Shrub-scrub Emergent Marsh • 2 - Conventional Signal 0.36 acre 0.12 acre 0.19 acre • 3 - Signalized Superstreet 0.38 acre 0.12 acre 0.19 acre • 5 - Full Diamond 0.40 acre 0.12 acre 0.19 acre
4-18 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Wetlands A and B are riparian wetlands associated with Salmon Creek and Spring Creek, which is a tributary of Salmon Creek. The riparian wetlands primarily provide wildlife habitat, wildlife movement corridors and serve as a stream buffer. Wetland C is a forested/emergent wetland that appears to be connected by a swale that flows south to Salmon Creek during rain events and may provide amphibian breeding opportunities. The areas of each wetland near the roadway are emergent marsh, while the wetland areas beyond the existing right-of-way are primarily forested.
Loss of wetland functions can be mitigated by replacement of lost wetland area in one (or a combination) of the following ways: use of a mitigation bank, in-lieu-fee payment, or wetland restoration/creation by the State near the project site. Each method would require the USACE to establish an acreage ratio of restored or created wetlands to replace wetlands lost due to construction of the project. Based on recent experience with similar projects in the Buffalo District, it is anticipated that the replacement ratio for this project would be between 1:1 and 2:1. Due to the minimization of project impacts below 1 acre, the USACE is not likely to require a mitigation ratio of more than 2:1 for any of the aforementioned methods.
The State’s preferred methods are mitigation banking, closely followed by in-lieu-fee. Construction on State property is not practical due to the lack of State-owned property in the project vicinity that would be suitable for wetland establishment. Purchase of wetland credits in a mitigation bank guarantees successful mitigation, as the wetland bank is established and the success of the wetlands has been proved. Similarly, payment of a fee in lieu of constructing a project-specific wetland would remove the State’s responsibility for monitoring and maintaining the success of a wetland on State owned property. The specific wetland mitigation method(s) utilized for this project will be coordinated with and approved by the USACE when the permit is obtained. Initial discussions with the USACE indicate that all the mitigation options in Exhibit 4.4.1-1 are potentially acceptable.
Wetland creation may be possible near the project corridor, but parcels owned by the state are generally located along roadways, which are not considered suitable for establishing wildlife habitat. There are no suitable wetland restoration sites nearby, as potential sites of former wetlands in this area are generally prime farmland, and are not available for acquisition by the State. Furthermore, required wetland monitoring would add to the wetland construction cost, which is the most expensive option. See the following table for a rough cost comparison.
Exhibit 4.4.1-1 Wetland Mitigation Cost Comparison Mitigation Type Total Cost1 Comments Cornerstone Mitigation Bank $150,000 $75,000.00 per credit (i.e. 1 acre) Ducks Unlimited In-Lieu-Fee $160,000 $80,000.00 per credit (i.e. 1 acre) $316, 000 Rough magnitude cost estimate that assumes a 2- On site Wetland Creation on (monitoring not acre wetland is built as part of the State highway State-owned property included) project Note: 1. All costs are directly related to the size of the wetland needed and assume a 2:1 replacement ratio.
Cornerstone Wetland Mitigation Bank is the nearest wetland bank, only one of two approved mitigation banks in western and central New York. Only one in-lieu-fee (ILF) program is available in New York State; it is operated by Ducks Unlimited and was approved by the Corps in September 2012. Both programs have established Service Areas based on drainage basins, the nearest of which for each is the Lower Genesee Service Area.
4-19 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses
4.4.2.1 Surface Waters
Surface waters have been identified within the project area. Those water bodies include Salmon Creek and one (1) minor tributary that combines with Salmon Creek just north of NY Route 31 and as discussed above. Another creek, Spring Creek merges with Salmon Creek just upstream (south) of Route 31 but outside the project footprint. There are no other streams or wetlands present within the project area.
The proposed project activities will generate impacts to the identified water bodies. Anticipated impacts will include a minor reduction in the length of natural channel associated with Salmon Creek and the unnamed tributary due to incidental culvert extensions/replacements that will be needed to accommodate a slightly wider overlying roadway. The extent of existing natural channel length reduction is approximately 20 ft for both culvert extensions under Alternative 2 & 3, with the maximum extent of existing natural channel length reduction of less than 50 ft for the new three sided structure under Alternative 5. The proposed work in both Salmon Creek and the unnamed tributary will be in conformance with USACE Section 404; however, there are associated wetland impacts as a result of the roadway work.
Anticipated impacts to wetlands, as discussed in the preceding sections of this report, will result from the placement of fill material needed to accommodate the various new terminus roadway alternatives. Refer to section 4.4.1.2 for permit discussions.
4.4.2.2 Surface Water Classification and Standards
Based upon a review of the NYSDEC GIS data maps for regulated streams, Salmon Creek and Spring Creek a tributary of Salmon Creek are rated Class C and are not impaired 303(d) segments.
The best usage for Class/Standard “C” waters is fishing. Water quality is therefore suitable for fish propagation and survival. Although other factors may limit the use for these purposes, the water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation.
Although the only expected project-related impacts to either Salmon Creek or the unnamed tributary will result from minor culvert extensions (less than 50ft.), NYSDEC will be consulted (in addition to USACE) to determine any restrictions to construction activities due to fish spawning seasons or other water quality concerns.
The project is not located within or adjacent to a TMDL Watershed.
4.4.2.3 Stream Bed and Bank Protection
Salmon Creek and the unnamed tributary are natural meandering channels with low-density native brushy vegetation lining their banks. As Salmon Creek approaches Route 31, its channel banks near the low flow line are lined with stone fill material, apparently intended to help maintain the channel alignment leading up to and through the box culvert. The channel beds are natural consisting of cobbles, finer granular sediments and glacial till. The affected channels are relatively flat and as such stream flow velocities are generally low at Route 31. Therefore, significant areas of channel bank degradation and/or bed scour/sedimentation do not exist.
4.4.2.4 Mitigation Summary
All construction activities in and around affected watercourses will be designed and performed in conformance with USACE/NYSDEC Best Management Practices and/or NYSDOT Standard Details. Mitigation for the stream channel work length has yet to be discussed with the USACE. But given the minor expected channel loss (i.e. 50 ft) compensatory mitigation, if required, is expected to be equally minimal. Some mitigation / minimization such as impacts to the natural channel may be minimized by oversizing and/or burying the extended culvert sections and by placing native stream material within the original
4-20 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
stream elevation; and if feasible, meet USACE regional conditions for the new three sided culvert under Alternative 5.
4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers
4.4.3.1 State Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
There are no NYSDEC Designated, Study or Inventory State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers within or adjacent to the proposed project site. No further review is required.
4.4.3.2 National Wild and Scenic Rivers
The project does not involve a National Wild and Scenic River as shown by the Nationwide Rivers Inventory List of National Wild and Scenic Rivers. No further review is required.
4.4.4 Navigable Waters
4.4.4.1 State Regulated Waters
Salmon Creek, a state regulated navigable waters, is located within the project area. The waterway could be used for recreational, single passenger craft. The project work will require placement of fill in these waters, but navigability of the waters will not be affected. Due to the NYSDOT and NYSDEC Memorandum of Understanding regarding Environmental Conservation Law Articles 15 & 24 (Feb. 12, 1997), an Article 15 permit will not be required.
4.4.4.2 Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters
There are no Office of General Services (OGS) underwater holdings located within the project’s area of potential effect that will be impacted by the work.
4.4.4.3 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9
Since the project does not involve the construction or modification of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over any federal navigable water of the United States, Section 9 is not applicable. (US Coast Guard Jurisdiction Check List)
4.4.4.4 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10
Since the project does not involve the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of any of the federal waters of the United States, or in any manner alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of any navigable water of the United States, Section 10 is not applicable.
4.4.5 Floodplains
4.4.5.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program
Salmon Creek is included in the recently adopted Monroe County Flood Insurance Study (FIS), date September 28, 2008. As part of the Study, a detailed hydraulic model was developed to determine floodplain boundaries surrounding Salmon Creek That model however did not extend far enough upstream to encompass the stream reach that traverses through the project site. Therefore, Base (100- year) Flood Elevations were not established. Flood plain boundaries at the project site however were adopted. The adopted floodplain is a relatively narrow band that is generally centered on the creek. Refer
4-21 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
to the following Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for an illustration of the existing floodplain associated with the effected segment of Salmon Creek.
The proposed project is within the 100 year floodplain of Salmon Creek in some locations. In accordance with the provisions of 6 NYCRR 502 – Flood Plain Management for State Projects, this action has considered and evaluated the practicality of alternatives to any floodplain encroachments. As a result of this evaluation, it is concluded that: (1) a significant encroachment does not exist, (2) there is no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles, and (3) there are no significant impacts on natural beneficial floodplain values.
A hydraulic analysis of Salmon Creek and specifically the segment near and under Route 31 was performed to determine the estimated flood elevation for both the Base (100-year) and Design (50-year) storm events. The analysis was initiated by first obtaining instrument-surveyed stream channel hydraulic cross-sections (on 6/13/2011date), taking detailed measurements of the existing 9’-7 5/8” x 19’-3 7/8” concrete box culvert and assessing channel bed, bank and overbank ground surface conditions.
Exhibit 4.4.5-1 Flood Insurance Rate Map – Panel 0155G
4-22 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 4.4.5-1 (Cont.) Flood Insurance Rate Map – Panel 0165G
Using USACE HEC RAS River modeling software and FHWA HY-8 software as a check, the water surface elevations at and upstream of the culvert were determined for both storm events. The flowrates used in the model were computed using the USGS “StreamStats” web-based geographic information system (GIS). USGS “StreamStats” methodology is consistent with the “Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in New York” (USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5112).
Based on the HEC RAS modeling, the estimated flood elevation for the Base and Design year storms is 526.51 ft and 526.25 ft respectively. Given the existing culvert invert of 520.57 ft, the HW to Depth (HW/D) ratio is therefore 0.59 and 0.57, respectively. The available freeboard for the 50-year Design storm is approximately 3.9 ft. The conclusion that was drawn from the analysis is that the existing culvert has sufficient hydraulic capacity to easily accommodate the stream flows without causing adverse back-ups in the channel during severe storm events. Freeboard is also sufficient (i.e. greater than 2 ft.) should the structure be designated as a bridge. Extending or replacing the culvert in-kind will have a negligible effect on the upstream flood boundaries.
4.4.5.2 Executive Order 11988
The project involves the reconstruction and slight relocation of Route 31 in the vicinity of the Salmon Creek culvert crossing. The proposed centerline of road is near the existing south head wall of the culvert. The primary area of minor floodplain impacts will occur on the south side of the existing culvert. Under the Full Diamond Alternative No. 5, the Department is proposing to replace the existing 9’-7 5/8” x 19’-3 7/8” concrete box culvert with a longer span bridge; the new hydraulic opening would be significantly expanded in comparison to the existing culvert. Minor toe of slope grading (cuts and fills) will occur along the south side of Route 31 in order to improve roadside safety, but the overall quantity of embankment fill within the
4-23 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
floodplain will be minor. Shifting Route 31 to the north, away from the floodplain is not practical, as it would significantly impact various existing residents and/or require a non-standard mainline horizontal curve on this high volume/high accident arterial.
It expected that the culvert work, whether in-kind replacement or extension, will have a negligible effect on flood elevations and floodplain values. As such, mitigation for any adverse project-related floodplain impacts is not warranted.
The Floodplain Evaluation Technical Memorandum is in Technical Appendix C1, which is available upon request.
4.4.6 Coastal Resources
4.4.6.1 State Coastal Zone Management Program
The proposed project is not located in a State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) area, according to the Coastal Zone Area Map from the NYS Department of State’s Coastal Zone Management Unit. No further action is required.
The project is not located in a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, as defined by the New York State Department of State (DOS) Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization. No further action is required.
4.4.6.2 State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
The proposed project is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area nor is it within the mapped coastal barrier resources system. No further action is required.
4.4.6.3 Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program
According to NYS DOS “List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs),” dated March 2007, the proposed project is not located in a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area. No further action is required.
4.4.6.4 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA)
The proposed project is not located in, or near a coastal area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) or the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA). No further action is required.
4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs
4.4.7.1 Aquifers
NYSDEC aquifer GIS data files have been reviewed and it has been determined that the proposed project is not located in an identified Primary Water Supply or Principal Aquifer Area. No further investigation for NYSDEC designated aquifers is required.
A review of the EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer Areas Federal Register Notices, Maps, and Fact Sheets indicates that the project is not located in a Sole Source Aquifer Project Review Area. No federal review and/or approvals are required pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
4-24 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
4.4.7.2 Drinking Water Supply Wells (Public and Private Wells) and Reservoirs
There are no municipal drinking water wells, wellhead influence zones, or reservoirs within or near the project area, according to the NYS GIS Clearinghouse mapping of Public and Private Wells (4/2000 w/ continual updates); therefore no further action is required.
4.4.8 Stormwater Management
The project improvements will include replacing and/or modifying the open stormwater drainage system that currently exists today. Some cross-culverts will either be new or replacements. But in all cases, the culverts will discharge to open conveyance channels (streams, swales, ditches). The primary stormwater discharge point (SPDES Analysis Point) will be Salmon Creek (or it’s nearby tributary – Spring Creek) that runs along the south side of Route 31 in Northampton Park for the majority of the project limits before turning north and eventually east after passing under Route 31. Salmon Creek and its connecting tributary both cross under the Route 31/531 approximately 3,000 feet west of Route 36.
Salmon Creek drains an approximate 14.5 sq. mi. watershed; however it is a 3rd order stream, not an impaired 303d stream, and the project is not located within a TMDL watershed. Its connecting tributary drains a much smaller approximate 3.1 sq. mile watershed. A SPDES General Permit GP-0-15-002 will be required because the project will have more than one acre of soil disturbance. The overall disturbance area is expected to be approximately 35 to 54 acres, depending on alternative chosen. The project will also increase the existing imperviousness due to roadway improvements. The existing project corridor currently has approximately 13.6 to 15.5 acres of pavement and upon completion of this project; there will be approximately 19.4 to 23.8 acres of pavement, which is an approximate 39% to 54% increase in overall imperviousness. This includes the new westbound Route 531/31 connection from Route 36 to Gallup Road and new pavement areas in the form of widening and channelization for safety improvements. Exhibit 4.4.8-1 summarizes the Stormwater Management Project Areas.
Exhibit 4.4.8-1 Stormwater Management Project Areas Existing Proposed Increase in Build Alternative Disturbed Area Impervious Impervious Impervious Conventional 34.8 acres 13.6 acres 19.4 acres 43% Signal Signalized 37.0 acres 14.5 acres 20.11 acres 39% Superstreet Full Diamond 54.6 acres 15.5 acres 23.8 acres 54% Interchange
The project will meet the ‘Redevelopment” standard for the replaced impervious areas and attempt to meet the ‘New” development standard for new impervious areas. The project will consider, and when feasible and appropriate, incorporate “Green Infrastructure” controls into the final contract documents. As required under the Green Infrastructure design process, consideration will be given to potential methods and means for providing the desired “Rainfall Reduction Volume”. Green Infrastructure controls may include any or a combination of vegetated open swales, porous pavement, infiltration practices, bioretention practices and dry swales.
As required by the SPDES General Permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with descriptions, supportive documentation and calculations associated with all proposed permanent Stormwater Management Controls (Best Management Practices) will be developed during final design.
Temporary erosion and sediment control plans will also be developed and incorporated into the project contract plans. Erosion and sediment control measures may include straw mulch, rolled erosion control product, temporary seeding, silt fence, check dams, inlet protection, and temporary sediment traps.
4-25 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Proposed post-construction Stormwater Management Practices were conceptually developed for the entire project area for the largest impact, which is Alternative 5. Based on the Full Diamond Alternative, with a disturbance area of 54.6 acres and a total imperviousness of 23.8 acres (with 8.3 acres of new impervious cover), the WQv for this project is 1.71 acre-feet. That number represents the total quantity of stormwater runoff that must be treated by a NYSDEC-accepted green infrastructure or standard stormwater management practice. The WQv for the three alternatives are summarized in the table below.
Exhibit 4.4.8-2 Project Water Quality Volumes (Required Treatment) Conventional Signal Signalized Superstreet Full Diamond Interchange 0.762/1.36 acre-feet 0.838/1.41 acre-feet 1.108/1.71 acre-feet *Redevelopment/New Construction
Due to existing topographic relief, the entire project site is broken into approximately 9 distinct sub-drainage basins, each with its own discharge point. Using the new SPDES Green Infrastructure Planning process as a guide, it is recommended that stormwater runoff be treated as close to its source as practical. To that end, all of the sub-drainage basins would include at least one (1) stormwater management practice to both treat runoff for quality and to attenuate peak discharge flows.
For this project, it is recommended to construct two (2) Extended Detention Ponds and seven (7) linear roadside dry swales. Treatment options are summarized in the following table.
Exhibit 4.4.8-3 Stormwater Management Practices Required Treatment Provided Treatment Sub-Drainage Area Treatment Practice Redevelopment/New
Construction (ac-ft) Area 1 Dry-Swale 0.081/0.165 0.141 Area 2 Dry-Swale 0.092/0.103 0.107 Area 3 Dry-Swale 0.117/0.196 0.198 Area 4 Dry-Swale 0.036/0.047 0.050 Area 5 Dry-Swale 0.068/0.104 0.107 Area 6 Dry-Swale 0.087/0.098 0.075 Area 7 Dry-Swale 0.091/0.095 0.095 Area 8 Stormwater Pond* 0.280/0.488 0.510 Area 9 Stormwater Pond* 0.262/0.417 0.440 Totals: 1.115 1.723 *Stormwater Ponds will also provide peak flow attenuation for the discharges to a Tributary of Salmon Creek.
The sub-drainage area locations and approximate stormwater management practice conceptual location and footprint are shown in Exhibits 4.4.8-1 and 4.4.8-2. The Water Quality volumes for this project are based on the amount of disturbed area and imperviousness in each sub-drainage area, and represent the volume that must be treated and can be treated by each practice. At a minimum based on the above the project will meet the “Redevelopment” Water Quality Volume requirement.
The proposed extended detention ponds and dry swales will be sized to provide the required channel protection volume (1-year storm) detention for the project. Within the Salmon Creek watershed the Overbank Flood (10-Year) and Extreme Flood (100-Year) detention is not required, based on a downstream analysis. The proposed increase in impervious surface will increases flows by only 0.7% for the 10-Year and 100-Year events. The increase in flow will have no impact on any downstream structures or buildings
4-26 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 4.4.8 – 1 Conceptual Location of Stormwater Management Facilities
4-27 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 4.4.8 – 2 Conceptual Location of Stormwater Management Facilities
4-28 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
and is less than the allowable increase of 5% per the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual. For the watershed that discharges into a Tributary of Salmon Creek the Overbank Flood and Extreme Flood event, additional detention will be provided by the two extended detention ponds. Based on the above the project will meet the SPDES Water Quantity Volume requirements.
4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources
4.4.9.1 Fish, Wildlife, and Waterfowl
A review of the projects area and potential effects indicates that the proposed highway improvements will impact wooded upland habitat under each alternative as shown below:
Build Alternative Forested Upland Impacts Alt. 2 – Conventional Signalized Intersection 2.10 acres Alt. 3 – Signalized Superstreet Median Crossover 2.81 acres Alt. 5 – Full Diamond Interchange 7.08 acres
Field review of the project area did not identify any significant fish or wildlife resources in the immediate area of proposed impact. The County of Monroe, Northampton Park, which is located immediately south of the project corridor includes several hundred acres of wooded habitat and wooded riparian corridor along Salmon Creek. The minor proposed impact to the woodland resource adjacent to the proposed highway improvements is not anticipated to cause adverse effects to the woodland resource or habitat value.
4.4.9.2 Habitat Areas, Wildlife Refuges, and Wildfowl Refuges
The proposed project does not involve work in, or adjacent to, a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further consideration is required.
4.4.9.3 Endangered and Threatened Species
According to the NYSDEC GIS information database, there are two (2) potential NYS Endangered species historically identified in the Route 31/Route 36 area. Both plants are found in rich woods, deciduous or mixed deciduous-evergreen, both upland beech-maple and more swampy woods in low ground. The plant species are Puttyroot Orchid, Aplectrum hyemale and Cranefly Orchid, Tipularia discolor.
NYSDOT Environmental staff conducted a field survey assessment for the possible occurrence of these species in the project area in 2011 and did not observe the subject species in the field. The subject species were not observed when Stantec conducted the re-delineation of wetland areas in December 2012. If identified in the area in future site visits, necessary actions will be taken during design and construction to avoid any direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the species. DOT will take appropriate measures during design and construction to ensure that impacts to it are avoided or minimized.
Field visits by DOT staff have identified an additional state-listed tree species in the vicinity of Salmon Creek. Confirmation of Ulmus thomasii (Cork elm) needs to be made by the NYSDEC; however the location of the specimen will be avoided by all three (3) feasible design alternatives.
October 2, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed to list the northern long-eared bat for protection under the ESA for its entire range. (The range of the northern long-eared bat encompasses the entire state of New York, with no delineated exclusion areas. FHWA anticipated that the northern long- eared bat would be formally listed under the ESA within approximately 12 months of the proposal date of October 2013. Regarding the interim period between now and when the northern long-eared bat is formally listed, the bat is considered “proposed”). Under Alternative 2, 3 & 5 tree impacts would be 2.86 Acres, 3.54 Acres & 8.36 Acres respectively.
4-29 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
This project will be constructed after the formal designation of federal Endangered for the Northern Long- eared Bat. For Alternative 2 and 3, based on past project guidance, the work is likely to receive a ‘May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect’ for the Northern Long-eared Bat given the number of trees taken, removal of trees in the winter months, and the availability of surrounding trees. To determine the effect of Alternative 5 a formal consultation with the USFWS will likely be required and will still result in a “May Affect” and could result in a ‘May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect’ for the forested upland impacts to habitat for the Northern Long-eared Bat.
NYSDOT obtained concurrence from FHWA for a ‘May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect’ for the forested upland impacts to habitat for the Northern Long-eared Bat for the Preferred Alternative 2.
4.4.9.4 Invasive Species
A review of the existing corridor indicates that there are locations of narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia) within the right-of-way, which are considered an invasive species. If they are impacted by the project grading they will be removed. Precautions will be taken to prevent the spreading of and the introduction of additional invasives, intentionally or accidentally, during project design and construction.
4.4.9.5 Roadside Vegetation Management
Existing roadside vegetation consists primarily of maintained lawn areas and agricultural fields on the north side of the project corridor and wooded area on the south side of the corridor. Efforts will be made to keep wildlife-supporting vegetation and replace what is disturbed or removed, with similar vegetation, in the course of construction.
4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas
4.4.10.1 State Critical Environmental Areas
According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project does not involve work in or near a Critical Environmental Area.
4.4.10.2 State Forest Preserve Lands
According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project does not involve work in or near state forest preserve lands.
4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources
4.4.11.1 National Heritage Areas Program
The proposed project study area is approximately 0.55 miles south of the Erie Canal but will not impact the area identified as Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor.
4.4.11.2 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 / State Historic Preservation Act – Section 14.09
Three Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Reports were completed under PIN 4531.05 for the Route 531 Extension Project. PIN 4351.07 falls within the limits of the tested areas of these Cultural Resource Reports:
• Architectural Survey and Cultural Resource Screening PIN 4531.05 121 Route 531 Extension Project from Route 36 to Brockport, Towns of Clarkson, Ogden and Sweden, Monroe County prepared by Cynthia
4-30 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Carrington Carter, Christopher D. Hohman & Andrea Zlotucha-Kozub, Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University for the New York State Museum, State Education Department, January 23, 2007.
• Architectural Survey PIN 4531.05 121 531 Extension Project from Route 36 to Brockport, Towns of Ogden and Sweden, Monroe County prepared by Cynthia Carrington Carter & Christopher D. Hohman, Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University for the New York State Museum, State Education Department July 3, 2007.
• Cultural Resource Management Report Phase 1B Archaeological Survey PIN 4531.05 121- NY 531 Terminus at NY 31 and Washington Street, Town of Ogden, Monroe County prepared by Richard A Kastl, M.A., RPA, Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University for the New York State Museum, State Education Department October 11, 2010.
These reports inventoried all structures and field tested for archeological concerns within the area of potential effect for the original project site.
One (1) historic property listed on, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places has been identified within the current project’s area of potential effect:
• 3600 Route 31-located within the APE for all three feasible alternatives. This house is National Register eligible under Criterion C. From the Historic Resource Inventory Form: “It is a good example of an early 20th Century Tudor style cottage. Characteristic of this style is the varied eave line heights; the use of wood shingles, stucco and decorative half-timbering; the steeply pitched gabled roof; and the prominent chimney.”
There are no National Register or National Register Eligible archaeological sites identified within the Area of Potential Effect.
The project’s activities do not have the potential to adversely affect the historic property. The undertaking will not alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register, in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.
The Department made a determination of No Adverse Effect based on a Findings Document prepared by the Department in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. The Findings Documentation Package and effect determination were submitted to the SHPO for their concurrence on July 13, 2012.
The SHPO concurred with the Department’s determination in a letter dated July 23, 2012. Correspondence with SHPO, along with the Finding Document, is included in Appendix B. In a letter dated March 9, 2015 FHWA concurred with the Section 106 determination. The requirements of 36 CFR Part 800 have been met for this project.
4.4.11.3 Historic Bridges
There are no bridges over 50 years old or listed on NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory that are located within the project’s area of potential effect.
4.4.11.4 Historic Parkways
This project does not have the potential to impact any Historic Parkways.
4.4.11.5 Native American Involvement
The Department will be following the Section 106 Process of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). This ensures compliance with this Act. In addition, places or artifacts of religious importance to Native Americans were not found within the project impact area.
4-31 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
In accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (amended 1994), the project alternatives are being advanced such that they will not interfere with Native Americans’ inherent right of freedoms, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rights.
Cultural Resource Reports were forwarded to the Seneca Nations and Seneca Tonawanda Seneca Nation in 2007 and 2010. Emails from the Seneca Nation indicated no concerns for this project.
4.4.11.6 Section 4(f) Involvement
One historic property that is listed on, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is located within the project’s area of potential effect. No ROW\land is being acquired nor converted from this property. A 4(f) evaluation will not be required for architectural resources.
An archeological survey was conducted by Binghamton University, State University of New York on July 3, 2007 along with a Phase 1B Archaeological Survey completed on October 11, 2010 to determine the presence of archaeological resources. No such resources were found in the project vicinity. A 4(f) evaluation will not be required for archaeological resources.
4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources
4.4.12.1 State Heritage Area Program
The proposed project is located in the Western Erie Canal State Heritage Area, more specifically, the Western Erie Canal Heritage Corridor. This NYS Heritage Area promotes public awareness about historic resources; coordinates regional preservation partners; documents historic buildings, cultural landscapes, and archeological resources; and also coordinates voluntary municipal adoption of a “compact resolution” to prioritize connections to the canal, develop an ethic of stewardship, pursue education and interpretation, and strengthen historic downtowns.
The proposed Route 531 Terminus improvements are approximately 0.55 miles south of the Erie Canal. The project will not impact any historical resources associated with the canal nor will it impact accessibility to the canal and is consistent with the goals identified for the Heritage Area Management Plan.
4.4.12.2 National Heritage Areas Program
The proposed project will not impact areas identified as National Heritage Areas.
4.4.12.3 National Registry of Natural Landmarks
There are no listed nationally significant natural areas within, or adjacent to, the project area.
4.4.12.4 Section 4(f) Involvement
The proposed project is located adjacent to Monroe County Northampton Park. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not have any impacts to the park. Alternative 5 would have a minor impact to the park requiring 0.70 Acres out of 48.86 Acres or 1.43 % of the total parcel in a remote northeast portion of the park that currently isn’t utilized. Furthermore since Alternative 2 is the Department’s preferred alternative there will not be any impacts to the park.
4.4.12.5 Section 6(f) Involvement
The project does not impact parklands or facilities that have been partially or fully federally funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act. No further consideration under Section 6(f) is required.
4-32 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
4.4.12.6 Section 1010 Involvement
This project does not involve the use of land from a park to which Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program funds have been applied.
4.4.13 Visual Resources
4.4.13.1 Introduction
The Route 531/31 project corridor extends from 1000 feet+/- east of Washington Street to Salmon Creek Road. The existing landscape through the project corridor, from most to least common, includes wooded parkland, cropland, fallow fields, woodlots and wetlands. There are scattered clusters of residences along the project corridor. Salmon Creek is visible during the times when leaves are not present.
The highway is the dominant man made feature in the landscape. The existing highway transitions from a divided four lane limited access expressway at Washington Street to a two lane undivided rural highway progressing to the west. West of Washington Street the existing highway is made up of long straight sections connected by short curves that reveal the next straight section, typical of a high speed, low volume rural highway. This appearance is not consistent with the current use as a high volume arterial. The visual volume of traffic is also not compatible with adjacent residential land use.
Viewer groups include commuter motorists, adjacent residents, park users and occasional bicyclists and pedestrians. Most viewers are familiar with the corridor and are therefore more sensitive to changes in the landscape as opposed to the overall visual character.
Views from the road are limited by mature vegetation and the lower position of the road in the surrounding topography. Views to the road are mostly from adjacent properties and the road is not visible in distant views outside the corridor.
4.4.13.2 Effects Assessment
The project alternatives will result in varying degrees of change to the expressway terminus at Washington Street. The at grade intersection alternatives will increase the amount of pavement in the immediate vicinity. The grade separated alternative would also introduce a new bridge at this location. These changes would be consistent with the existing visual character of the expressway section.
All alternatives include modifications to the intersections at Hubbell Road and Gallup Road and will require the acquisition and demolition of several homes along Route 31 in this section. The Hubbell Road reconstructed intersection will introduce a wide grass median that divides opposing lanes of traffic, and includes acceleration and deceleration lanes. This will create an open view between lanes. The Gallup Road intersection will include a paved median with a two way turn lane and acceleration lane. Each of these intersection reconstructions will also result in a more curvilinear roadway than the existing highway. This will help more clearly communicate the current arterial highway use to the motorist. The demolition of several homes will have a minimal effect on the viewshed due to backyard tree rows that will screen the view to the north. All alternatives include tree removals west of Route 36 along the south side of Route 31. These tree removals will be minimized and will not affect any views. For Alternative 5, tree and shrub removals at the southwest corner of Route 531/Route 36 will improve the intersection sight distance.
Overall the project will result in minor visual changes that are consistent with the existing visual character and quality of the area. Opportunities will be explored to buffer the highway from residential properties. This may be accomplished with plantings.
4-33 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
4.4.14 Farmlands
4.4.14.1 State Farmland and Agricultural Districts
The project is located in Monroe County Agricultural District No. 5 Northwest. The project will not acquire more than 10 acres from within an agricultural district. However, under all three (3) build alternatives the project will acquire more than the 1.0 acre threshold from one individual farm with up to a maximum of 1.95 acres required from the Robb farm (Alt 2). The proposed total Agricultural District impacts are shown below along with previous impacts prior to minimization:
Proposed impact to Build Alternative Agricultural District (acres) Alt. 2 – Conventional Signalized Intersection 1.95 (previously 4.31) Alt. 3 – Signalized Superstreet Median Crossover 1.95 (previously 4.29) Alt. 5 – Full Diamond Interchange 1.89 (previously 3.96)
Land that is not actively farmed is not included in the Proposed Agricultural District Impact. As a result of the proposed right-of-way without access along the frontage of these parcels, the Robb Farm will lose access to his farmland parcel from Route 31, but will retain access from Gallup Road. The impacts to the agricultural district were minimized by eliminating consideration of the multi-use trail, adjusting the vertical alignment and revising the road embankment sideslopes to 1 on 4 from 1 on 6 to reduce grading impacts along the north side of Route 31, between Gallup Road and Salmon Creek, which is predominantly farmland. The right-of-way acquisitions without access between Salmon Creek and Gallup Road will have a remaining portion of privately owned land that could potentially be utilized as farmland in the future. Some of the land being acquired from the agricultural district could be compensated by converting some of the remaining privately owned land, currently not farmed, back to farmland.
The Agriculture and Market Law, Article 25-AA, requires prior notice to the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets for these right-of-way acquisitions in an Agricultural District. A combined Preliminary and Final Notice of Intent (P/FNOI) was filed with the New York State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets and the Monroe County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board. The FNOI included a report justifying the proposed action including an evaluation of alternatives that would not require action within the Agricultural District. The FNOI has been accepted by the NYS Ag & Markets, and the Regional Director Certification, confirming that “NYSDOT has met the requirements of State Agriculture and Market Law, Section 305(4) and to the mandate practicable, minimized or avoided adverse agricultural impacts as revealed in the Final Notice of Intent” has been submitted to the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, March 25, 2015 and has been provided in Appendix B.
Federal Prime and Unique Farmland
The provisions of the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (7CFR Part 658) will apply to the proposed project and the proposed project will involve the permanent conversion of prime farmland soils. The US Department of Agriculture NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating – Information Form/Checklist will be submitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The total right of way taking of all impacted farmland acres are identified as Prime Farmland. The proposed total Prime Farmland soils impacts are shown below along with previous impacts prior to minimization:
Proposed impact to Prime Build Alternative Farmland Soils (acres) Alt. 2 – Conventional Signalized Intersection 2.13 (previously 4.74) Alt. 3 – Signalized Superstreet Median Crossover 2.18 (previously 4.72) Alt. 5 – Full Diamond Interchange 2.05 (previously 4.35)
Land that has been developed for residential use is not included in the Proposed Impact to Prime Farmland Soils. As mentioned above, the proposed right-of-way without access acquisition along the frontage of
4-34 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
these parcels, the Robb Farm will lose access to his farmland parcel along Route 31, but will still retain access from Gallup Road.
The Monroe County Soil Survey Maps, the lists of Prime and Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating – Information Form/Checklist are included in Appendix B. The appropriate documentation was submitted to NRCS for their review and a ‘Letter of Exemption’ has been obtained and is included in Appendix B.
Similarly, the impacts to the prime farmland soils were minimized by eliminating consideration of the multi- use trail, adjusting the vertical alignment and revising the road embankment sideslopes to 1 on 4 from 1 on 6 to reduce grading impacts along the north side of Route 31, between Gallup Road and Salmon Creek. Again, the right-of-way acquisitions without access between Salmon Creek and Gallup Road will have a remaining portion of privately owned land that could potentially be utilized as farmland in the future. Some of the prime farmland soils being permanently converted could be compensated by converting some of the remaining privately owned land, currently not farmed, back to farmland.
4.4.15 Air Quality
4.4.15.1 Regulatory Framework
The conformity requirements for local transportation plans and the proposed project are found in Section 176 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90) and 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93- Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act. As a federally funded project, the NEPA review process requires that this project meet the conformity requirements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for New York State. The SIP was prepared in order to achieve the mandated goals of meeting and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The Air Quality Analysis Report for the project corridor (March 2013) is available upon request as a separate Engineering Report (2).
4.4.15.2 Transportation Conformity
The conformity requirements for local transportation plans and the proposed project are found in Section 176 of the CAAA90 and 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act.
The proposed project is located in Monroe County, which is part of the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC). GTC is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the Genesee- Finger Lakes Region. The USEPA has designated Monroe County as in attainment for carbon monoxide and particulate standards. However, on April 15, 2004 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Monroe County as being in “Subpart 1 Basic” nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. “Subpart 1 Basic” nonattainment is the classification representing the least severe violations of the NAAQS for ground-level ozone; however, regardless of the classification, all areas designated as being in nonattainment of a NAAQS are required to determine if transportation improvements in these areas conform to federal air quality requirements. Therefore, as an ozone non-attainment area, the region is currently subject to conformity procedures and the GTC is currently required to continue to perform air quality analysis for the Region.
However, per EPA guidance, for 1997 ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas that are not designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS ceases to apply on July 20, 2013; in such areas, no further conformity
4-35 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
determinations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or any other ozone NAAQS are required on or after that date.
Currently, ozone concentrations at the Rochester area monitoring station were below the NAAQS in 2011. Therefore, since design approval for this project will be after July 20, 2013, a conformity determination is not required for this project since the GTC Region is expected to be in attainment at that time.
4.4.15.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis
To determine whether the project is subject to a microscale air quality analysis for CO, the feasible build alternatives were reviewed and a screening was performed in accordance with the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM). The screening consisted of reviewing the Level of Service changes, capture criteria, and traffic volume thresholds. This screening process is performed to identify projects that have a potential for local air quality impacts and warrant the performance of a microscale air quality analysis.
During the microscale analysis screening, site specific emission factors were calculated for the project which allowed for interpolation of volume thresholds for the project area. Comparison of the volumes on all of the project intersections and free-flow areas to the established volume thresholds in the EPM indicated that the project’s volumes are too low to warrant a microscale analysis for CO. Therefore, no microscale analysis for CO was performed for the project.
4.4.15.4 Mesoscale Analysis
If the project significantly affects traffic conditions over a large area, it is also appropriate to consider regional air quality effects of the project by way of a mesoscale analysis. A mesoscale analysis covers a geographic area that is larger than the immediate project area, but smaller than the entire network system.
The feasible build alternatives were screened to determine if a quantitative mesoscale analysis should be performed. The EPM indicates that, among other criteria, mesoscale analysis is appropriate for projects that have new or significant modifications to interchanges on access- controlled facilities. Since this project can be characterized under this EPM example of “new or significant modifications to interchanges on access-controlled facilities,” a mesoscale analysis is appropriate for this project.
A mesoscale analysis was performed for this project that encompassed the entire project study area. The methodology for the analysis conformed to the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM), Chapter I and all subsequent updates that have been distributed by the Engineering Division - Office of Environment. The mesoscale analysis modeled the regional effects for five air pollutants including: nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon Monoxide (CO), and two particulate matter (PM) fractions PM-10, and PM-2.5. Emissions were estimated for years ETC (2014), ETC+10 (2024) and ETC+20 (2034) under the no-build and build alternatives. The results of the analysis allowed for a comparison of the proposed project’s total emissions (for the build alternatives) relative to the No-Build Alternative total emissions.
The results indicate that the build alternatives generally have a slightly higher overall emissions burden than the No-Build Alternative. The results of the mesoscale analysis indicate that construction of the build alternatives would result in emissions burden changes, in the project study area, ranging from:
• 1.41% to 4.50% for CO • -0.32% to 5.42% for NOx • 1.20% to 5.33% for VOCs • 1.88% to 4.51% for PM-10
4-36 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
• 1.87% to 4.52% for PM-2.5
The emissions burdens for all 5 pollutants are expected to increase within the project area if any of the build alternatives are constructed. The maximum expected increases for the five pollutants are as follows: CO (4.50%), NOx (5.42%), VOCs (5.33%), PM-10 (4.51%), and PM-2.5 (4.52%). However, the results of the Mesoscale analysis are relative and do not directly indicate that emissions in the area are expected to be above regulatory thresholds. The Mesoscale results may be used as a screening tool to identify individual pollutants that are more likely to exceed regulatory levels in the future.
There is no EPM specified percentage level that would indicate that these pollutants would require further analysis; however, the general rule of thumb is an increase of more than 10% for the build alternatives. Since the maximum percentage increases for these pollutants is less than 10%, these percentage increases need only be documented in the design approval document.
The results of the mesoscale analysis may also be used as a tool for comparing emissions results of the project alternatives to one another as one of many issues to consider in the process of evaluating each alternative. Using the mesoscale results for comparison of alternatives indicates that the Full Diamond Alternative (Alternative 5) will yield the highest relative emissions increase of the 3 build alternatives. The alternative expected to yield the next highest emissions is the Superstreet Intersection Alternative (Alternative 3), followed by the Conventional Intersection Alternative (Alternative 2).
4.4.15.5 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Analysis
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the review of federally funded transportation projects with respect to Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). The current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance is the “Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA” dated December 6, 2012. Our project fits into FHWA MSAT Analysis Tier Level 2 (Projects with Low Potential MSAT Effects) which involves “qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects”.
For each alternative in this assessment, the amount of MSAT emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the terminus/interchange improvements are expected to attract traffic back to this route that has avoided the area due to congestion and accidents. This increase in VMT means MSAT under the Build Alternatives would probably be higher than the No Build Alternative in the study area. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to less stop-and-go traffic and increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, emissions of all of the priority MSAT except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decrease will offset VMT-related emission increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models. There could also be localized differences in MSAT from indirect effects of the project such as associated access traffic, emissions of evaporative MSAT (e.g., benzene) from parked cars, and emissions of diesel particulate matter from delivery trucks.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Build Alternatives are nearly the same, varying by less than 3 percent, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various Build Alternatives. For all Alternatives, emissions are virtually certain to be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by 72 percent from 1999 to 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future than they are today.
4-37 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Relocation of the travel lanes to the south as part of the project’s build alternatives will have the effect of moving some traffic further away from nearby homes; therefore, under each alternative there may be localized areas near homes where ambient concentrations of MSAT would be lower under the build alternatives. However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential decreases cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable information in forecasting project- specific MSAT health impacts. Further, under all Alternatives, overall future MSAT are expected to be substantially lower than today due to implementation of EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations.
In summary, under all Build Alternatives in the design year, it is expected there would be slightly higher MSAT emissions in the study area relative to the No Build Alternative due to slightly increased VMT. It is also expected that there will be decreases in MSAT levels in a few localized areas where roadways are relocated further from residences. Regardless, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations will bring about significantly lower MSAT levels for the area in the future than today and therefore no future action is required.
4.4.15.6 Particulate Matter (PM) Analysis
In accordance with the TEM/EPM, this project has been screened through the requirements identified in the December 2010 EPA document “Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas” (EPA- 420-B-10-040). In accordance with EPA-420-B-10-040, the requirement for a microscale (a.k.a hot- spot) analysis is triggered by a project related significant increase in diesel vehicles. Since it is not anticipated that the Build Alternatives will cause an increase in diesel vehicles, a PM microscale analysis is not warranted for this project. Therefore, no microscale analysis for PM was performed for this project.
4.4.15.17 Construction Air Quality Analysis
The duration of construction for this project is expected to be less than 5 years; therefore, inclusion of non-road construction emissions in the air quality analyses will not be required or performed for this project.
In addition, there are no construction “diversions or detours” lasting 2 years or more (i.e. two consecutive CO seasons) at any one location, or permanent improvements to other facilities as a result of project detours/diversions that are anticipated. Therefore, a detour related traffic emissions analysis will not be required or performed for this project.
4.4.16 Energy
4.4.16.1 Regulatory Framework and Guidance
The SEQRA/NEPA process requires review of environmental considerations including energy impacts. The State Energy Plan, adopted in 2002, calls for the State’s transportation sector to be more energy efficient and sets goals for reducing consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Regulatory guidance also includes the Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis, NYSDOT, November 25, 2003, Energy Analysis Guidelines for TIPs and Plans, dated November 25, 2003, and Executive Order 12185.
4.4.16.2 Energy Analysis
This project has been reviewed to determine the need for a “Project-Level” energy analysis in accordance with the ‘Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis’, NYSDOT November 25, 2003. This ‘Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis’ document
4-38 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
refers to NYSDOT’s ‘Energy Analysis Guidelines for TIPs and Plans’ (also dated November 25, 2003) which contains the guidance for determining regional significance. The criteria for determining whether a project requires a quantitative Energy Analysis are generally: regional significance, increase in VMT, construction costs, projects identified through the scoping process, nature of the project, or existing problems in energy supply or distribution. One of the thresholds defining regional significance from the ‘Energy Analysis Guidelines for TIPs and Plans’ document is “Additional grade-separated ramps or new interchanges on Principal Arterials or above”. Since our project proposes to create additional grade separated ramps on Route 531 (a limited access expressway) and is expected to increase the local VMT, this project requires quantitative “Project- Level” energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses.
Project-Level Energy Analysis
The “Project-Level” energy analysis for this project has quantitatively considered the relative direct and indirect energy consumed by the alternatives in order to compare the energy consumption of the individual alternatives within the study area. Direct energy impacts refer to the use of the roadway apart from construction, and include the energy consumed by vehicles using the roadway. Indirect energy impacts include the energy required to construct and maintain the roadway.
The methodology used for the energy analysis followed the NYSDOT’s 2003 Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis document identified above. The actual analysis was performed utilizing the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) Roadway and Rail Energy and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Extension (MOVES-RREGGAE). MOVES-RREGGAE is an interface designed for the NYSDOT that provides a platform for estimating energy and GHG associated with transportation projects and plans in New York State. The MOVES-RREGGAE program is an extension to EPA’s MOVES emission factor algorithm analysis and includes roadway operation, roadway maintenance, and roadway construction. Construction energy calculations were based on the lane-mile method.
The traffic data used for the analysis was annual average daily traffic (AADT). The AADT data has been annualized through multiplication by 365.25 for use in the model.
Data entry years for analysis include the Estimated Time of Completion ETC (2014), ETC+10 (2024), and ETC+20 (2034). The results of these analysis years were used to create an annualized 20 year model for each alternative.
The study area for the energy analysis included Routes 531 and 31 and the ramps as well as affected adjacent streets.
The model results indicate that the Build Alternatives are all predicted to increase total energy consumption when compared to the No Build Alternative for all analysis years – under both direct and indirect energy uses (refer to Table 4.4.16-1). The total 20 year percent increases for energy use from the build alternatives over the No-Build Alternative range from 2.44% to 6.03%. These differences in total energy consumption can be attributed primarily to additional direct energy use that is anticipated as a result of the new roadway configurations.
In addition to comparison to the No-Build Alternative, the results of the energy analysis can also be used as a tool for comparing build alternative energy use predictions to one another as one of many issues to consider in the process of evaluating each build alternative. Comparison of the energy analysis results for the build alternatives indicates that the Full Diamond Alternative (Alternative 5) will yield the highest relative energy use of the 3 build alternatives. The build alternative expected to yield the next highest energy use is the Superstreet Intersection Alternative (Alternative 3), followed by the Conventional Intersection Alternative (Alternative 2). The following is a detailed breakdown of the average 20-year percent differences between the energy use model results for the three build alternatives:
4-39 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
• The Full Diamond Alternative energy use is the highest at: o 2.45% higher than the Superstreet Intersection Alternative and o 3.39% higher than the Conventional Intersection Alternative. • The Superstreet Intersection Alternative energy use is the intermediate at: o 0.96% higher than the Conventional Intersection Alternative and o 2.51% lower than the Full Diamond Alternative. • The Conventional Intersection Alternative energy use is the lowest at: o 0.97% lower than the Superstreet Intersection Alternative and o 3.51% lower than the Full Diamond Alternative.
Exhibit 4.4.16-1 Energy Requirements (million BTU)
Direct Indirect (yearly average over 20 years) Average 20 Percent Year Total Annual 20 Year Combined Change and Scenario Year Roadway Roadway Indirect Direct/Indirect from (Percent Roadway Annual Construction Maintenance Total Total No-Build Change Operation Average Per Year from No- Build) 2014 1.124e+005 1.129e+005 --- 1.177e+005 No Build 2024 1.171e+005 1.172e+005 --- 5.308e+002 5.308e+002 1.176e+005 --- (---) 2034 1.221e+005 1.226e+005 --- 2014 1.116e+005 1.144e+005 1.31% Conventional 1.206e+005 2024 1.177e+005 1.178e+005 2.034e+003 7.709e+002 2.805e+003 1.205e+005 2.44% Intersection (Δ2.44%) 2034 1.241e+005 1.269e+005 3.49% 2014 1.128e+005 1.156e+005 2.34% Superstreet 1.218e+005 2024 1.189e+005 1.190e+005 2.003e+003 7.677e+002 2.771e+003 1.217e+005 3.43% Intersection (Δ3.43%) 2034 1.253e+005 1.281e+005 4.44% 2014 1.116e+005 1.167e+005 3.37% Full-Diamond 1.248e+005 2024 1.197e+005 1.197e+005 4.308e+003 8.245e+002 5.133e+003 1.248e+005 6.12% Interchange (Δ6.03%) 2034 1.279e+005 1.330e+005 8.48% Notes: Construction and maintenance results have been annualized based on 20-yr project duration (i.e., the total Indirect Energy Consumption for roadway construction and maintenance has been divided by 20). Values do not include well-to-pump.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Fossil fuel combustion is the most significant source of GHG emissions for the proposed project. The burning of fossil fuels produces emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which results from oxidation of the carbon in the fuel. The GHG emission analysis was performed in accordance with NYSDOT’s “Draft Greenhouse Gases (CO2) Emissions Estimate Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis” (NYSDOT 2003) using the MOVES-RREGGAE model. The study area for the GHG analysis included Routes 531 and 31 and the ramps as well as affected adjacent streets.
GHG emissions are generated from direct and indirect energy consumption from vehicle and equipment operations associated with the highway, connecting roadways, and local streets affected by the project. For direct GHG emissions, it was assumed that the energy consumed from vehicles is a result of the combustion of motor fuel. For indirect GHG emissions, it was assumed that the energy consumed during construction and maintenance operations is a result of the combustion of diesel fuel.
The Build Alternatives are predicted to increase GHG emissions when compared to the No Build Alternative – including factoring in the additional GHG emissions from the construction of the Build Alternatives (refer to Table 4.4.16-2). The total 20 year percent increases for GHG emissions from the build alternatives over the No-Build Alternative range from 2.29% to 5.80%.
As with the energy analysis, the results of the GHG analysis can be used as a tool for comparing emissions of the projects build alternatives to one another as one of many issues to consider in the process of evaluating each build alternative. Using the analysis results for comparison of build
4-40 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
alternatives, the Full Diamond Alternative (Alternative 5) will yield the highest relative GHG emissions of the 3 build alternatives. The build alternative expected to yield the next highest GHG emissions is the Superstreet Intersection Alternative (Alternative 3), followed by the Conventional Intersection Alternative (Alternative 2). The following is a detailed breakdown of the average 20- year percent differences between the GHG emission model results for the three build alternatives:
• The Full Diamond Alternative GHG emissions is the highest at: o 2.35% higher than the Superstreet Intersection Alternative and o 3.31% higher than the Conventional Intersection Alternative. • The Superstreet Intersection Alternative GHG emissions is the intermediate at: o 0.99 % higher than the Conventional Intersection Alternative and o 2.40% lower than the Full Diamond Alternative. • The Conventional Intersection Alternative GHG emissions is the lowest at: o 1.00% lower than the Superstreet Intersection Alternative and o 3.42% lower than the Full Diamond Alternative.
Exhibit 4.4.16-2 Greenhouse Gas Requirements (mass in metric tons)
Direct Indirect (yearly average over 20 years) Average 20 Percent Year Total Annual 20 Year Combined Change and Scenario Year Roadway Roadway Indirect Direct/Indirect from (Percent Roadway Annual Construction Maintenance Total Total No-Build Change Operation Average Per Year from No- Build) 2014 8.862e+003 8.901E+03 --- 9.260e+003 No Build 2024 9.208e+003 9.221e+003 --- 3.885e+001 3.885e+001 9.247E+03 --- (---) 2034 9.592e+003 9.631E+03 --- 2014 8.789e+003 8.994e+003 1.05% Conventional 9.472e+003 2024 9.254e+003 9.267e+003 1.489e+002 5.643e+001 2.053e+002 9.459e+003 2.30% Intersection (Δ2.29%) 2034 9.749e+003 9.954e+003 3.36% 2014 8.895e+003 9.098e+003 2.21% Superstreet 9.567e+003 2024 9.351e+003 9.364e+003 1.466e+002 5.619e+001 2.028e+002 9.554e+003 3.32% Intersection (Δ3.31%) 2034 9.846e+003 1.005e+004 4.34% 2014 8.801e+003 9.177e+003 3.10% Full-Diamond 9.797e+003 2024 9.409e+003 9.421e+003 3.154e+002 6.036e+001 3.757e+002 9.785e+003 5.82% Interchange (Δ5.80%) 2034 1.005e+004 1.043e+004 8.25% Notes: Construction and maintenance include CO2 only. Construction and maintenance results have been annualized based on 20-yr project duration (i.e., the total Indirect GHG emissions for roadway construction and maintenance has been divided by 20). Values do not include well-to-pump.
Summary and Mitigation
The model indicates that the build alternatives will increase energy consumption and GHG production beyond the No-Build alternative within the corridor by between 2.29% and 6.03%. As this project is expected to increase traffic efficiency as it transitions from Route 531 to Route 31, the project is expected to re-route travel patterns and attract new traffic to the corridor. While this traffic will increase energy usage within the corridor study area, the re-routed traffic will also reduce energy consumption along other streets within the outlying roadway network. In addition, drivers that are predicted to route through the improved corridor are doing so due to an increase in efficiency which will likely relate to additional energy and GHG savings. Therefore, the reduction in congestion will extend beyond the immediate corridor and potentially increase the efficiency of the surrounding roadway network. Given that the overall difference in energy and GHG results for the Build versus the No-Build alternatives is generally small, the additional efficiencies provided to additional users of the corridor may actually show as a decrease in consumption on a regional basis.
4-41 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Comparison of the build alternatives indicates that the estimated energy and GHG results under each of the build alternatives are not significantly different, varying by between 0.96% and 3.51%. Therefore, it is expected there would not be a significant difference in overall energy consumption and GHG production among the three build alternatives. However, the Full Diamond Alternative (Alternative 5) is expected to yield the highest relative energy and GHG emissions of the 3 build alternatives followed by the Superstreet Intersection Alternative (Alternative 3), and then followed by the Conventional Intersection Alternative (Alternative 2).
As mitigation, the energy and GHG efficiencies of the individual alternatives may be taken into account when deciding on the chosen alternative for the project. In addition, steps will be taken to reduce energy consumption during construction such as routine maintenance of construction vehicles to improve fuel efficiency, selecting fuel-efficient vehicle and haul routes, and the keeping of lane closures to a minimum.
4.4.17 Noise
Regulatory Framework:
The requirements for transportation projects are codified in the Federal-Aid Program Guide in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 23 Part 772 (23 CFR 772) - Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. In addition, NYSDOT Noise Analysis Policy guidance for performing noise analysis on transportation projects in New York State is given in NYSDOT’s The Environmental Manual (TEM), Section 4.4.18, "Noise Analysis Policy and Procedures".
Methodology:
The proposed project is classified as a Noise Regulation Type 1 under 23 CFR 772 due to this project’s (1) proposed construction of a highway on a new location, (2) physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes both the horizontal and vertical alignment, (3) an increase in the number of through-traffic lanes, and (4) the addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps added to a quadrant to complete an existing partial interchange. Therefore, a traffic noise analysis has been completed for the existing and each of the proposed build alternatives. The procedures followed for the analysis were in accordance with 23 CFR 772 and the NYSDOT TEM.
Existing field noise measurements were collected following the NYSDOT's "Field Measurement of Existing Noise Levels" manual. Two field noise measurements were collected at each receiver. The field noise measurements at each receiver consisted of one field measurement during either an AM or a PM peak hour and one field measurement during an off peak hour.
The future analysis was performed for the project’s design year, 2034. The FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 2.5 was used to perform the analyses.
Receivers:
A review of local planning documents was performed in conjunction with a site visit to identify existing activities and developed lands, and to locate undeveloped lands for which development is planned, designed, or programmed. Noise-sensitive receivers as defined by 23 CFR 772 were identified. Five (5) receiver sites have been identified for the project corridor. A description of each identified site and its noise category as defined by 23 CFR 772 follows:
o Receiver Location A -- Representative of the front yards of 11 residences along the north side of Route 31 that is located west of Hubbell Road. Receiver is located along the Route
4-42 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
31 right-of-way (ROW) in the front yard of 5130 Brockport-Spencerport Road in the grass. - Activity Category B (residential areas).
o Receiver Location B -- Representative of a portion of the Northampton Park in an area where frequent human use occurs. Receiver is located at the base of the ski hill in the grass along the edge of the woods at the closest point to Route 31. - Activity Category C (park areas).
o Receiver Location C -- Representative of the front yards of 12 residential properties north of Route 31 and west of Washington Street. Receiver is located along the Route 31 ROW in the front yard of 3524 Brockport-Spencerport Road in the grass. - Activity Category B (residential areas).
o Receiver Location D -- Representative of the backyards of 10 residential properties south of Route 31, north of Route 531, and east of Washington Street. Receiver is located along the Route 531 ROW immediately adjacent to the back yard of 3505 Brockport-Spencerport Road in the grass. - Activity Category B (residential areas).
o Receiver Location E -- Representative of three residences south of Route 531 and East of Washington Street. Receiver is located along the Route 531 ROW immediately adjacent to the side yard of 600 Washington Street in the grass. - Activity Category B (residential areas).
Exhibit 4.4.17-1 Traffic Noise Receptor Location Sites
4-43 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Existing Conditions:
Field noise measurements were collected on February 28, 2012 for all five receivers. Peak noise levels were identified as follows:
o Receiver Location A – 75 dBA o Receiver Location B – 46 dBA o Receiver Location C – 70 dBA o Receiver Location D – 57 dBA o Receiver Location E – 59 dBA
Existing noise levels were compared to the predicted future noise levels to assist in the identification of potential future noise impacts.
Analysis Results:
TNM noise modeling of the project corridor was performed for the project’s design year (2034) and documented in a Noise Study Report. The Noise Study Report has been included within the Separate Engineering Report B, of this Design Report. The following two (2) criteria were used to determine if noise impacts would occur:
1) A 6 dBA increase between the existing noise levels and the design year 2034 build alternative noise levels. 2) The predicted design year 2034 build alternative noise level for an analysis site approaches, or exceeds the appropriate FHWA’s Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). The NYSDOT has defined “approach” to be one decibel less than the NAC for a site. Activity Categories B and C have a NAC of 67 dBA.
Existing noise levels predicted during the verification modeling were compared to the predicted future noise levels to assist in the identification of potential future noise impacts. Refer to the Noise Study Report for a full listing of noise levels. The noise models showed a total of two noise impacts above the FHWA NAC at:
• Receiver Site A: The impact at Site A was predicted under all conditions. • Receiver Site C: The impact at Site C was predicted under the no-build condition; however, it was not predicted under any of the build conditions.
Construction of any of the build alternatives is predicted to eliminate the noise impact at Site C; however, the noise impact at Site A is expected to remain an impact under all build or no-build conditions.
With respect to a comparison between the three build alternatives, the variation in the results ranged from 0-2 dBA (maximum of 3 dBA at Site C) per receiver, see exhibit below. Since 3 dBA is generally considered the minimum decibel difference noticeable to the human ear, the differences in noise levels between the three build alternatives are essentially negligible and primarily imperceptible to the human ear. Therefore, consideration of the noise level differences between the build alternatives to favor one build alternative over another is not recommended.
4-44 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 4.4.17-2 Traffic Noise Impact Summary – Model Results
Mitigation Summary:
When noise impacts are predicted for a project, noise abatement must be considered for each impact; no favor is given to the higher decibel level impacts or different types of noise impacts (e.g. above NAC, substantial, severe) and all noise impacts must be considered equally for consideration of noise abatement. The analysis reveals that future noise impacts are predicted for this project at Receiver A; therefore, the noise abatement measures listed in 23 CFR 773.13(c) were considered in this location. There are four main noise abatement measures that are considered when an impact has been identified:
1. Traffic management measures such as traffic control devices and signing for prohibition of certain vehicle types, time-use restrictions for certain vehicle types, modified speed limits, and exclusive lane designations. 2. Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments. 3. Construction of noise barriers. 4. Acquisition of real property to serve as a buffer zone.
Noise abatement measures must be considered feasible and reasonable to warrant implementation. Feasibility involves the practical capability of the noise abatement measure being built as well as the capacity to achieve a minimum reduction in noise levels. Reasonableness deals with the social, economic, and environmental factors to be considered when evaluating abatement measures. The noise abatement analysis indicated that noise abatement is not feasible or reasonable in the area of Receiver A. Noise walls, in the area of Receiver A, would not be feasible due to the many access drives which would require many openings in the wall, thereby negating the effectiveness of the wall. Additionally, a wall at this location would be a significant visual alteration to the neighborhood. The other measures (traffic management and vertical/horizontal alignment alteration) are also not reasonable. Altering the profile of Route 31 would severely affect driveway access, and, traffic management for this one street would be difficult to enforce and would result in a very small decibel reduction. For this project, the noise abatement measures are not reasonable or feasible; therefore, no noise abatement measures are planned.
Additional details on the analysis results and mitigation consideration can be found in the Noise Study Report within the Separate Engineering Report B of this Design Report.
4-45 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Construction Noise:
Short term construction noise may impact abutting receptors to some extent due to the character of the project and some of the operations involved. However, no unusual noise mitigation is expected to be necessary for the work proposed under these alternatives. Daytime construction activity during the regular work week should limit sleep disturbance problems. Locating high noise level equipment away from sensitive receptors, awareness of potential noise problems and complaints, and maintenance of proper muffling devices should minimize construction noise impacts.
4.4.18 Asbestos
4.4.18.1 Screening
An asbestos screening has been performed for this project and it has been determined that there are two areas of potential asbestos-containing materials: 1) in the existing residential buildings to be demolished on parcels proposed for taking as part of this project, and 2) the existing utility lines that will be removed and replaced. As such an asbestos assessment will be performed once the NYSDOT has legally acquired the properties. A Term Agreement consultant will be retained for a sampling and testing report for the structures. If asbestos is determined to be present on the project, an Asbestos Special Note and Specifications will be prepared by NYSDOT personnel or a consultant with an Asbestos Designer License.
4.4.18.2 Mitigation Summary
No special site specific variances are anticipated for this project. Existing Departmental blanket variances or existing variances will be sufficient for this project.
4.4.18.3 Interagency Coordination:
Consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.) is included in Appendix B.
4.4.19 Contaminated and Hazardous Materials
4.4.19.1 Screening
A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening has been conducted in accordance with NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 5, in order to document the likely presence or absence of hazardous/contaminated environmental conditions. A hazardous/contaminated environmental condition is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products (including products currently in compliance with applicable regulations) on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property.
The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening included a review of NYSDEC regulatory data files and a site ‘walkover’ on June 3, 2011.
4.4.19.2 Assessment and Quantification Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Review
A review of local, State and Federal Environmental databases was conducted. Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Inc. was contracted to provide a comprehensive review of Federal, State and local listed data on potential hazardous waste sites in the project vicinity. This data search was performed in accordance with ASTM E-1527-05 standards for minimum search distance. The use of the EDR resource
4-46 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
allows for a comprehensive listing of sites of potential concern. The following table summarizes the information available through the EDR report and a cursory review of NYSDEC and USEPA data bases:
Exhibit 4.4.19 – 1 Environmental Records Review Minimum Search Distance - ASTM Standard: No. of Listed STANDARD Environmental Record Sources miles (kilometers) Properties1 Federal NPL Site List 1.0 (1.6) 0 Federal Delisted NPL Site List 0.5 (0.8) 0 Federal CERCLIS List 0.5 (0.8) 0 Federal CERCLIS NFRAP Site List 0.5 (0.8) 0 Federal RCRA CORRACTS Facilities List 1.0 (1.6) 0 Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities List 0.5 (0.8) 0 (RCRA-TSDF) Property and adjoining Federal RCRA Generators List 0 properties only Federal Institutional Control/ Engineering Control Property only 0 Registries Federal ERNS List Property only 0 State equivalent NPL 1.0 (1.6) 0 State equivalent CERCLIS (Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites – SHWS) 0.5 (0.8) 0 State Landfill and/or Solid Waste Disposal Site Lists 0.5 (0.8) 0 (Solid Waste Facility/Landfill – SWF/LF) State Leaking Storage Tank Lists (LTANKS) 0.5 (0.8) 0 State Registered Storage Tank Lists (UST/AST) 0.25 (0.4) 1 State Institutional Control/Engineering Control Property only 0 Registries State Voluntary Cleanup Sites 0.5 (0.8) 0 State Brownfield Sites 0.5 (0.8) 0
Additional Environmental Record Sources (Specific to EDR report):
Federal FINDS Property only 0 Local List of Registered Storage Tanks (HIST 0.25 (0.4) 2 UST/AST) State Leaking Storage Tank Lists 0.5 (0.8) 0 (HIST LTANKS) NY Spills 0.125 (0.2) 4 Federal RCRA – NonGen 0.25 (0.4) 1 State Manifest Records 0.25 (0.4) 0 1 Sites may be listed in more than one database.
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs were also reviewed for potential areas of environmental concern, based on prior land use. Sanborn Maps and a city directory were not available for the project.
4-47 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Site Walkover The Hazardous Waste Screening included a site walkover of the proposed project area, as well as the suspect sites of environmental concern identified in the review of EDR records, historical topographic maps and aerial photography. The objective of the site walkover is to obtain familiarity with the project area, to note visually observable environmental concerns, review the characteristics of the project area, and identify areas exhibiting signs of possible environmental degradation.
4.4.19.3 Mitigation Summary
Several hazardous waste/contaminated material sites possibly warranting remediation were identified in the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening. A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Assessment will be performed to assess potential impacts to the project. If necessary, a Remediation Plan will be developed after a complete review of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Assessment. The following is a brief description of the findings of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Screening Report, a detailed description of the information obtained through the screening process is provided in the Hazardous Waste Assessment (April 2012) available upon request as Separate Engineering Report 5.
The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening identified seven potential Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Sites located adjacent to the ROW; see Exhibit 4.4.19-1 at the end of this section. Six (6) of the sites are located within the proposed ROW for the Build Alternatives and all six have concerns over the presence of household chemicals, which if not removed prior to property acquisition, the disposal of these chemicals will become the responsibility of the state. The 7th site is an existing gas station/convenient store which has no proposed ROW acquisition. A Summary of the information obtained through the screening process is provided below:
• Site 1: Residential property at 3752 Route 31 The aerial photography review and site inspection revealed miscellaneous debris scattered throughout the site including tires and automobiles. An inspection of the interior of the structures at this property was not conducted, but household chemicals may be present.
• Site 2: M&M MiniMart Store and gasoline station, 3512 Route 31 Although there have been no reported spills at this M&M MiniMart property, due to the current and historical use of the site as a gasoline station petroleum contamination may be present. In addition, spills have been reported adjacent to this property, although these spills are reportedly closed, residual contamination may be present.
• Site 3: Residential property at 3750 Route 31 The environmental data base review and visual inspection did not reveal items of concern for this property. An inspection of the interior of the structures at this property was not conducted, but household chemicals may be present.
• Site 4: Residential property at 3746 Route 31 The environmental data base review and visual inspection did not reveal items of concern for this property. An inspection of the interior of the structures at this property was not conducted, but household chemicals may be present.
• Site 5: Residential property at 3652- 3654 Route 31 The environmental data base review and visual inspection did not reveal items of concern for this property. An inspection of the interior of the structures at this property was not conducted, but household chemicals may be present.
4-48 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
• Site 6: Residential property at 3650 Route 31 The environmental data base review and visual inspection did not reveal items of concern for this property. An inspection of the interior of the structures at this property was not conducted, but household chemicals may be present.
• Site 7: Residential property at 3648 Route 31 The environmental data base review and visual inspection did not reveal items of concern for this property. An inspection of the interior of the structures at this property was not conducted, but household chemicals may be present.
Based on the findings of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening, it is recommended that the following be performed at the residential properties that will be acquired by the build alternatives, to determine the magnitude of the remediation (including disposal) that may be required during construction:
1. Based on the road side visual inspection of the residential property at 3752 Route 31 (Site 1), it is recommended that the debris at the property (including any non working vehicles) be removed prior to acquisition and the property inspected for evidence of environmental contamination (surface staining, stressed vegetation, pools of liquid, etc.). If the site is to be acquired without removal of the debris, the debris should be thoroughly inspected so that proper disposal can be arranged. After the removal of the debris is complete the site should be re-inspected to check for evidence of environmental contamination (surface staining, stressed vegetation, pools of liquid, etc.). If environmental contamination is suspect the appropriate sampling should be conducted to arrange for the removal and proper disposal.
2. Due to the potential presence of household chemicals in the structures on the parcels that will be acquired, it is recommended that the current home owners be requested to remove any chemical from the properties prior to transferring the properties. After the properties are transferred the interior of the buildings should be inspected, any chemicals present in the structures should be identified and arrangements made for proper disposal. The sites where this is recommended include the following:
• Residential property at 3752 Route 31 (Site1) • Residential property at 3750 Route 31(Site 3) • Residential property at 3746 Route 31 (Site 4) • Residential property at 3652 - 3654 Route 31 (Site 5) • Residential property at 3650 Route 31 (Site 6) • Residential property at 3648 Route 31 (Site 7)
Based on the findings of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening, petroleum contamination may be present within the ROW adjacent to the M&M MiniMart Store at 3512 Route 31. No excavation work is anticipated at this site, but it is recommended that the intersection of Routes 31 and 36 be called out on the design plans so if any changes are made during construction the proper screening, segregating, sampling and potential disposal of petroleum contaminated soil would be accounted for.
4-49 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
Exhibit 4.4.19 – 2 Potential Sites of Environmental Concern
4-50 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
4.5 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS
4.5.1 Construction Impacts
The construction of the build alternative(s) would involve conventional construction methods and products. Therefore, the consequences are well known and can be mitigated using conventional methods. Further, the impacts of construction would be temporary in nature. During construction, a temporary increase in heavy vehicle traffic within the project area would result due to the presence of heavy construction equipment and other construction related vehicles.
All attempts will be made to minimize impacts to the east-west commuter traffic as well as access to local residences and business during the construction period. Route 531 traffic may be rerouted to an off-site detour utilizing Route 259, (the nearest interchange to the east) and Route 31 to bypass the construction work zone (new Terminus). It is anticipated that through the use of public notices/advisories a fairly significant amount of traffic will select available alternate routes to avoid the construction zone. The duration of a detour would be minimized to the greatest extent possible through the use of on-site traffic maintenance, during the preparation phases, so that construction can be expedited in the areas requiring the detour.
Additional traffic may be experienced on Union Street (Route 259), Route 31 and Colby Street within the immediate detour area. This option will be evaluated during final design and a decision will be made once all impacts are considered. Route 31 will be maintained at all times through the construction zone using staged construction. Route 36 may also require local detours (depending on the selected alternative) which shall be minimized.
Accessibility to all properties along the project corridor will be maintained. Impacts such as dust and noise is inevitable during construction, however all Federal, State and local regulation regarding mitigation will be adhered to. Work Zone Temporary Traffic Control plans and details will be further analyzed during detailed design (Phase V-VI) and will include coordination with Monroe County DOT, local officials, school districts and emergency service providers.
No significant affect is expected to result from erosion or sedimentation caused by construction activity. Potential impacts on water quality during construction will be controlled by temporary soil erosion and sediment control measures such as silt fence, straw mulch, and temporary sediment traps according to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan refer to section 4.4.8 Stormwater Management. All disturbed areas will be permanently replanted to control long term erosion.
Overall the construction impacts will involve a combination of off-site and on site traffic control for most of the roadway work (minor delays), depending on the feasible alternative; however, an off-site detour for construction at the Terminus may create user delays in the area and will be further explored during final design and a decision will be made once all the impacts are considered.
Anticipated Permits and Approvals
Specific and/or general permits and approvals that may potentially be required for the project are summarized below:
• NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity; • NYSDEC, Section 401 Water Quality Certifications; • NYSDEC Article 15 Protection of Waters compliance through Memorandum of Understanding between DOT and DEC; • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Individual Section 404 Permit.
4-51 APRIL 2015 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4531.07
It is noted that although specific permits may not be required, coordination with several agencies (SHPO, USACE, and NYSDEC) may still be required for various project activities. In addition permitting agencies will be coordinated with to determine exact permitting requirements for this project.
4-52