Route 250 Corridor Study Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE

I. Project Statement and Purpose

A. Introduction I-1 B. Purpose I-2 C. Municipality Concerns I-2 D. Study Objectives I-4 E. Public Involvement I-5

II. Existing Conditions A. Location and Site Description II-1 B. Existing Land Use and Zoning II-1 C. Environmental Constraints in the Corridor II-5 D. Review of Comprehensive Plans and Zoning II-5 E. Population and Employment Projections II-8 F. Recent Development Trends II-8 G. Roadway Geometry II-12 H. Daily Traffic Volumes II-14 I. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes II-14 J. Existing Traffic Operations II-16 K. Crash History II-20 L. Public Transit Services II-22 M. Pedestrian Accommodations II-22

III. Future Conditions and Buildout Analysis A. Buildout Analysis III-1 B. Future Traffic Volume Forecasting Assistance III-3 C. Future Traffic Volumes III-4 D. Future Traffic Operations III-4

IV. Project Strategies and Recommendations A. Corridor-Wide IV-1 B. Municipality-Specific Recommendations IV-9 C. Probable Cost of Proposed Physical Improvements IV-15

Appendices (Separate Document)

Route 250 Corridor Study List of Figures

Figure Description Follows Page 1 Study Area II-1 2 Webster Zoning II-1 3 Webster Land Use II-3 4 Penfield Zoning II-3 5 Penfield Land Use II-3 6 Perinton Zoning II-3 7 Perinton Land Use II-4 8 Vacant Land Use II-4 9 Household Change (Units) 2005 to 2025 II-8 10 Household Change (%) 2005 to 2025 II-8 11 Employment Change (Jobs) 2005 to 2025 II-8 12 Employment Change (%) 2005 to 2025 II-8 13 Existing Intersection Geometry II-12 14 Posted Speed Limits II-12 15 Webster 2005 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes II-14 16 Penfield 2005 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes II-14 17 Perinton 2005 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes II-14 18 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes II-15 19 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes II-15 20 Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service II-15 21 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service II-15 22 Bus Routes II-22 23 Bike Rideability II-22 24 Pedestrian Accommodations II-23 25A&B Webster Vacant and Underutilized Land III-2 26A&B Penfield Vacant and Underutilized Land III-2 27A&B Perinton Vacant and Underutilized Land III-2 28 2025 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes III-4 29 2025 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes III-4 30 2025 AM Peak Hour Level of Service III-4 31 2025 PM Peak Hour Level of Service III-4 32 Functional Intersection Area IV-4 33 Hamlet Area with Future Signal IV-11 34 Hamlet Area with Future Roundabout IV-11

Route 250 Corridor Study List of Tables

Tables Description Page 1 Zoning Summary Information II-2 2 Population Projections II-9 3 Employment Projections II-10 4 Summary of Study Area Developments in 2005 Monroe County Land Use Monitoring Report II-11 5 NYSDOT Highway Work Permits on NYS Route 250 1989 to Present II-13 6 Access Management Features Driveways and Driveway Density II-14 7 Existing Peak Hour Level of Service Summary II-18 8 High Crash Rate Locations II-21 9 2025 Peak Hour Level of Service Summary III-5 10 Opinion of Probable Costs – With and Without Roundabouts IV-16

Route 250 Corridor Study Technical Appendices

Appendix Description A Public Meetings – Presentations and Public Comments

B Town of Penfield Land Use Analysis: A Component of the NYS Route 250 Corridor Study C Existing Traffic Data – Intersection Counts D Signal Warrant Analysis Studies – Town of Penfield E Level of Service Definitions – Signalized Intersections F Existing Peak Hour Level of Service Worksheets G Travel Demand Volume Summaries (PM Peak Hour) – GTC Model H Future 2025 Peak Hour Level of Service Worksheets I Opinions of Probable Cost - Worksheets

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Chapter I: Project Statement and Purpose

A. Introduction

New York State Route 250 is a major north-south urban arterial road in eastern Monroe County. While not a traditional radial commuter route into the Metropolitan Rochester area, Route 250 plays a unique role in serving the non-radial travel needs of the communities it links, including the:

. Town of Webster . Village of Webster . Town of Penfield . Town of Perinton . Village of Fairport . Town of Victor (Ontario County)

Route 250 connects to village centers in both Webster and Fairport and acts as a feeder route to the major radial highways serving the Metropolitan Rochester area, including:

. NY Route 104 . NY Route 404 (Ridge Road/Main Street in Webster) . NY Route 441 (Penfield Road) . NY Route 31F (Church Street) . NYS Route 286 (Atlantic Avenue/Browncroft Boulevard) . NY Route 31 (Pittsford-Palmyra Road) . NY Route 96 (Pittsford-Victor Road)

The higher travel speeds and connectivity of the regional freeway system, including NY Route 590 and I-490, have made Route 250 less competitive as a through route, allowing Route 250 to serve local travel needs and shorter-distance regional travel (from town to town and from town to radial feeder). The six effected communities, the Genesee Transportation Council, the New York State Department of Transportation, the Monroe

Page I-1

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

County Department of Transportation, the Monroe County Department of Planning and all six effected communities determined that a transportation study was needed to help keep Route 250 a safe and efficient roadway that can continue to serve local and regional travel needs well into the future. The Genesee Transportation Council has provided funding, under the Unified Planning Work Program, to conduct this coordinated study addressing transportation planning, mobility, safety, and development along this major north-south route.

B. Purpose

The purpose of this study is to develop a long range plan for the Route 250 corridor that addresses the transportation needs of each linked community. Current and future congestion problems, future growth, roadway improvement needs, access management strategies, and auto, truck, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements will all be addressed. An implementation strategy for the recommended improvements including possible grants or alternative funding strategies will be developed.

C. Municipality Concerns

1) Webster (Town and Village)

Webster is one of the fastest growing towns in Monroe County. With the expansion of commercial and retail businesses within Webster, increased traffic in both the town and the village using Route 250 has become a concern. Route 250 plays an important role in the Village of Webster, and the village crossroads occurs at the intersection of Route 250 with Route 404. Future planning must be respectful of the multi-modal transportation needs within the village.

Page I-2

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

2) Penfield

Penfield has the greatest amount of undeveloped land within the Route 250 corridor, and as a result, there is significant concern that the character and safety of Route 250 may be in jeopardy if proactive transportation planning is not enhanced along the corridor. While Penfield has significant zoning in place to limit development in much of the eastern part of the town, the development of a coordinated land use and transportation plan would be highly desirable in helping to guide future land use decisions along the Route 250 corridor. Route 250 at Route 441 will continue to be a commercial hub and growth pressures are likely to grow at this busy intersection.

3) Perinton

Route 250 is one of two north-south roads that pass through the Town of Perinton. Both Route 250 and Turk Hill Road start at Route 96 to the south and continue to the north into the Town of Penfield. Route 250 needs to be able to continue to function effectively into the future, providing access to side streets and to the Perinton Square commercial area at the intersection of Route 250 with Route 31. Access between the Town of Perinton and Route 96 is important.

4) Fairport

A slower speed limit, the Erie Canal lift bridge, and the CSX/Amtrak at-grade railroad crossing are some key capacity constraints on Route 250 through the Village of Fairport. Route 250 is also the commercial center of the village, so future planning must be respectful of the needs of commercial businesses in this community.

Page I-3

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

5) Victor

Victor is located at a regional crossroads with the convergence of the NYS Thruway (I-90), I-490, Route 96, and Route 250. Route 250 is a vital feeder route from the Town of Perinton into the Eastview Mall commercial area along Route 96. With the future development of High Point and Victor Commerce Park and the continued residential growth of western Ontario County, the capacity of Route 250 may be severely hampered to service this vibrant commercial area without a long-term corridor vision.

D. Study Objectives

a. Conduct a planning level study that develops a long range plan for the Route 250 corridor that addresses the transportation needs of each linked community, addressing the quality of life in each community.

b. Define the specific present and future transportation system mobility or congestion problems within the study area, including auto, truck, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian.

c. Project the future growth in the area based upon the review of adjacent land uses, zoning, access points, existing utility services, and environmentally sensitive areas.

d. Identify, evaluate, and recommend future roadway improvements and utility needs within the study area to address identified problems/needs and that align themselves with the area’s existing natural and man-made features.

Page I-4

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

e. Recommend appropriate access management strategies, land use changes, traffic calming measures, traffic signal optimization/remote coordination and context sensitive design elements.

f. Recommend auto, truck, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements to improve safety conditions, comfort level, and mobility along this corridor.

E. Public Involvement

Involvement of the community and its citizens is a critical element of a transportation planning study, and for this effort, two important outlets were selected: First, a study advisory committee was formed of local planning and engineering officials from the involved municipalities, plus other involved agencies, including the Genesee Transportation Council, the NYSDOT, the Monroe County Department of Transportation, and the Monroe County Department of Planning and Development, This group met at key break points to review study progress, review interim materials, and to help assemble the existing transportation and land use inventory.

The second effort was the conduct of two public information meetings. These meetings were held at the Town of Penfield Town Office Building on:

. April 4, 2007 – Presentation of Existing Conditions - . June 24, 2008 – Presentation of Draft Study Report

These meetings were advertised in the local papers and public information flyers were prepared and distributed to the communities for use in mailings to residents and businesses along the corridor. At both meetings, verbal and written comments were provided that were essential in the identification of existing problem areas/local concerns. A copy of the PowerPoint presentations plus summaries of the comments received are provided in Appendix ‘A’.

Page I-5

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Chapter II: Existing Conditions

A key step in the evaluation of a highway corridor is the documentation and evaluation of existing conditions. For the Route 250 Corridor Study, this required the assistance of the involved municipalities, Monroe County, and the Genesee Transportation Council to evaluate the following transportation and planning aspects of the corridor.

A. Location and Site Description

This study examines the Route 250 corridor extending from Lake Road in the Town of Webster, New York to Route 96 in the Town of Perinton, New York (see Figure 1: Study Area). The 16-mile corridor travels through three towns and two villages, traversing agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial lands. The study area selected for this report includes the Route 250 corridor and adjacent land within a 500 foot-long area to both the east and west of Route 250.

The 1,000 foot adjacent area surrounding the 250 corridor consists of some of the major intersections, commercial centers, and residential areas in the municipalities. Within this corridor, certain sections are fully developed while other areas still consist of vacant and underdeveloped land.

B. Existing Land Use and Zoning

The zoning classification along the Route 250 corridor differs in each town. A summary table of zoning districts within the corridor, with their associated regulations and permitted uses is provided as Table 1.

In Webster, the northernmost municipality in the Study Area, the majority of the zoning is some classification of Residential. Refer to Figure 2: Webster Zoning. Within the Village of Webster, there are areas of neighborhood business, central business, and industrial zoning. However, the majority of the corridor within the village consists

Page II-1

Lake Road Lake Ontario

Schlegel Road

Klem Road Ontario Webster A@104 Legend 404 A@ Village of Study Area Webster Route 250

d oa Local Roads R te ta Irondequoit S County Roads 250 A@ State Roads Plank Road Interstate Route

Penfield Center Road

Atlantic Avenue Penfield A@286 Walworth A@286 ² Whalen Road Brighton

441 A@ Ontario Webster

Irondequoit Penfield Walworth East Rochester Hill Rd Turk Whitney Road Brighton

31F East Rochester A@ Macedon Village of C Pittsford Perinton hu Fairport rc h St re 31F et A@ Mendon Victor Farmingto

l Vi t a n a C Pittsford e i r E Macedon ¦¨§490 3 Route 250 Perinton A@1 Garnsey Road

Turk Hill Rd Turk Corridor Study

A@250 Figure 1

96 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Study Area Mendon A@ Victor FarmingtonMiles

Project #06-4108 Lake Ontario WD Lake Rd Lake Rd

lk e Wa Lak Legend Underutilized Land Lake Point Dr Town Boundaries 1000 Foot Buffer Vacant Land R_2 Rt250 Local Roads

LL d

R County Roads

LL LL p Interstate Roads R_1 i

Woodhull Rd l

l i State Roads

h P Webster Zoning Sagebro ok Way Class I Neighborhood Commercial Central Business Class II Low Intensity Commercial Neighborhood Business R_1 Planned Unit Development Residential R1-13.6 R-1 Large Lot Residential R-2 Residential R1-9.6 r Meadowwood D Schlegel Rd Residential R-M Low Medium Residential District Medium High Residential Surrey G Residential R2-9.6 R_1 arden Way R-3 R_3 Waterfront Development Wall Rd West End Business District IN Office Park Industrial Klem Rd

A@250 ² Conifer Cove Ln

Ontario MHR G-I Webster Irondequoit OP R2-9.6 Orchard Rd 104 Donovan St A@ Rochester Penfield Walworth

R-M LC_2 Brighton LC_2 East Rochester

R-M

104 r e Macedon A@ P.U.D. k Pittsford Perinton

N-B a

B R2-9.6 WEB R-M 404 HC A@ Ridge Rd. C-B Victor Farmingt MC Mendon R2-9.6 R1-9.6 MC Sanford St MHR MHR R-M Fuller Ave P.U.D. Route 250 R1-13.6 d Village of R_3

n Corridor Study

o Webster

MHR a R_3 J

R_3 R_3 e Rd Stat R_3 Figure 2 R2-9.6 LL Webster 0500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet d oa Zoning R e at St Project #06-4108 Table 1: Zoning Summary Information Route 250 Corridor Study

Zoning District Primary Town/Village District Restrictions Permitted Uses Town of Webster R-1 Single Family Residential Min. Lot Area of 35,000 sf Single Family, Religious, Parks, Schools, Agricultural R-2 Single Family Residential Min. Lot Area of 28,000 sf Single Family, Religious, Parks, Schools, Agricultural R-3 Single Family Residential Min. Lot Area of 22,000 sf Single Family, Religious, Parks, Schools, Agricultural Large Lot Single Family Residential (LL) Min. 3 acre Lot Res/Min. 5 acre Lot Non-Res Single Family, Religious, Parks, Schools, Agricultural Medium High Residential (MHR) Min. Lot Areas of 11,250 sf and 15,000 sf Single Family, Two Family, Multi Family, Townhouses Low Medium Residential (LMR) Min. Lot Areas of 13,500 sf and 16,500 sf Single Family, Two Family, Multi Family, Townhouses Class I Neighborhood Commercial (LC-I) Min. Lot Area of 15,000 sf Offices and Stores Class II Low Intensity Commercial (LC-II) Min. Lot Area of 30,000 sf Offices, Stores, Banks, Restaurants Industrial (I-N) Min. Lot Area of 62,500 sf Manufactoring, Warehouses, Industrial Processes Waterfront Development (WD) Min. Lot Area of 18,000 sf Single Family, Parks, Restaurants, Stores, Clubs Office Park (OP) Min. Lot Area of 62,500 sf Indoor/Outdoor Sports Facilities, Hotels, Offices Village of Webster R-1-13.6 Min. Lot Area of 13,600 sf Single Family, Schools, Churches, Libraries R-1-9.6 Min. Lot Area of 9,600 sf Single Family, Schools, Churches, Libraries R-2-9.6 Min. Lot Areas of 9,600 sf and 18,000 sf Same as Above Plus Two Family and Townhouses RM Residential Min. Lot Areas of 9,600 sf and 18,000 sf Same as Above Plus Multiple Residence Neighborhood Business (NB) Subject to R-2-9.6 Regulations Single Family, Schools, Churches, Libraries, Retail Central Business (CB) 25% Max. Lot Coverage (Res) 90% Max. Lot Coverage (Comm) Single Family, Schools, Churches, Libraries, Retail/Restaurants Town of Penfield Conservation Residential (CR-2) Min. Lot Area of 87,120 sf One Single Family Residence Per Lot and Customary Agricultural Operations Rural Residential (RR-1) Min. Lot Area of 43,560 sf One Single Family Residence Per Lot and Customary Agricultural Operations Residential 1-12 (R-1-12) Min. Lot Area of 12,000 sf One Single Family Residence Per Lot and Customary Agricultural Operations Residential 1-15 (R-1-15) Min. Lot Area of 15,000 sf One Single Family Residence Per Lot and Customary Agricultural Operations Residential 1-20 (R-1-20) Min. Lot Area of 20,000 sf One Single Family Residence Per Lot and Customary Agricultural Operations Multiple Residence (MR) Min. Lot Area of 3,500 sf per Apartment Unit Apartment House, Two Family Structures, Health Care Facilities Townhouse Dwelling (TD) Not to Exceed 1 Unit for Each 5,000 sf of Land Townhouses and Maintenance Buildings Planned Development (PD) Min. Site Area of 50 Acres to develop as PD All Residential Types, Commercial and Other Non-Residential Uses Business Non-Retail (BN-R) No Min. Lot Area, Bldg. Coverage on Lot No Greater Than 65% Offices, Banks, Medical, Public Buildings and Grounds, Commercial Schools Limited Business (LB) No Min. Lot Area, Bldg. Coverage on Lot No Greater Than 65% Uses permitted in BN-R Plus Grocery, Laundromat, Retail, Etc. General Business (GB) No Min. Lot Area, Bldg. Coverage on Lot No Greater Than 65% Uses Permitted in BN-R and LB Plus Theatres, Dept Stores, Liquor Stores Rural Agricultural (RA-2) Min Lot Area of 87,120 sf One Single Family Residence Per Lot and Customary Agricultural Operations Town of Perinton Residential Class AA Min. Lot Area of 20,000 sf (30,000 sf Corner Lot) Single Family Detached Dwellings Residential Class A Min. Lot Area of 20,000 sf (30,000 sf Corner Lot) Single Family Detached Dwellings Residential Class B Min. Lot Area of 14,400 sf (19,200 sf Corner Lot) Single Family Detached Dwellings and Two Family Dwellings Residential Class C Min. Lot Area of 14,400 sf (19,200 sf Corner Lot) Single and Two Family Dwellings, Townhouses and Patio Homes Residential Transition Min . Lot Area of 1 Acre Single Family Detached Dwellings Residential Sensitive Min . Lot Area of 1 Acre Single Family Detatched Dwellings and Agricultural Restricted Business Min. Lot Area of 40,000 sf Offices, Medical, Hotels, Clubs Limited Commercial Min. Lot Area of 20,000 sf Uses allowed in Restricted Business plus Retail Stores and Restaurants Open Space Preservation Restrictions Per Town and Conservation Boards Development Per Town Board Approval Village of Fairport Residential Min. Lot Areas Ranging from 6,000 to 15,000 sf Single Family and Multi Family Residential Based on Residential Sub-District Limited Commercial - Residential (LC-R) No Structure Shall House More Than 3 Non-Residential Uses Retail Stores, Restaurants, Office, Banks, Municipal Bldgs, Multi Family Res. Business (B-1) Min. Lot Area of 5,000 sf Retail Stores, Restaurants, Office, Banks, Municipal Bldgs, Multi Family Res. Canal District (C-D) Subject to B-1 Bulk Requirements Single Family and Multi Family Residential, Retail, Restaurants, Specialty, Office Landing Development District (L-D) Restrictions Per Village Planning Board Agricultural, Open Space, Lawns, Gardens, Play Areas Industrial (M-1) Any Use Creating Objectionable Smoke, Noise or Odor Uses Permitted in B-1 plus Manufacturing, Laboritory, Warehouse, Office

Page II-2 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

of R-1 (28,000 square foot minimum lots), R-2 (22,000 square foot minimum lots), and R-3 zoning (18,000 square foot minimum lots).

The existing land use pattern in Webster matches up well with its current zoning. Refer to Figure 3: Webster Land Use. Most of the Route 250 corridor in Webster is being used for residential purposes. There are some parcels that are being used as public services and recreation and entertainment that are zoned residential. Within the village boundaries, most of the land is being used as commercial or residential, which is what it is zoned. There are no large areas of land that are being used for a different purpose than what they are zoned.

In Penfield, the majority of the corridor consists of land zoned for residential and agricultural uses as shown in Figure 4: Penfield Zoning. The zoning classifications in the northernmost section of the corridor include Rural Agricultural – which primarily allows agricultural and residential uses - (2 acres minimum for single family residential lots), and to the south of that Rural Agricultural (1 acre minimum for single family residential lots). Traveling southbound, the zoning turns to Residential R-1-20 (20,000 square feet minimum lots), along with different commercially zoned areas, and finally, on the southern border, R-1-15 (15,000 square foot minimum lots).

The existing land use along Route 250 in Penfield largely reflects current zoning in most areas, as shown in Figure 5: Penfield Land Use. While most of the zoning in the northern section is called agricultural, the Town of Penfield zoning allows for agriculturally-zoned land to have residential properties built upon it. According to the Penfield land use files, residential, vacant, and agricultural land are dispersed throughout the northern sections of Penfield along Route 250. Closer to the intersection of Route 250 and Route 441, the predominant land use changes to commercial, which is also the existing zoning.

Along the Route 250 Corridor in Perinton is zoned mostly residential land, as depicted in Figure 6: Perinton Zoning. With the exception of the Village of Fairport

Page II-3

Legend Study Area Local Roads

Lake Road County Roads Lake Ontario Interstate Roads State Routes Railroad

t l NAME

a S Lake Ontario Village Boundary

d Town Boundary

p Rt250 Woodhull Rd i

P Land Use Agricultural Commercial 250 A@ Community Services Industrial No Data or Unclassified Public Services Schlegel Road Recreation & Entertainment Residential Vacant Land d Wall Rd R

l Wild Land & Public Parks

H Klem Road

Ontario Webster

D 250 Irondequoit

A@ d

h Orchard St C Rochester Penfield Walworth

104 Brighton A@ East Rochester

Pittsford Perinton Macedon St E Main A@404 Ridge Rd Farmington Mendon Victor Victor

Village of Route 250 Webster Corridor Study e Rd Stat

d Figure 3 oa R e at St Webster

Penfield 0 0.25 0.5 1 ² Miles Land Use A@250 Project #06-4108 Wycliff Dr n

e b Ba e in l brid t ge Ln s

i r d

a h D

o R T e

n e i at Ang Driveway p t ean Dr

l S A

Marchner Rd

M r

i R

r t d

y a e

T e d

s t r

l s b

p e n

d W R m s

D e a

at k

t o H c

S l

Passing Creek Dr Legend

C Town Boundaries

y t Wildleaf Dr a e

r w r 1000 Foot Buffer e u

v T i Plank Hermance r Rd Rd

D Rt250 Plank Rd Local Roads County Roads Interstate Roads

d Allen Rd State Roads

n Penfield Real Zoning

k Business Non Retail

a 250 J A@ General Business Limited Business Kennedy Rd Northrup R d Northrup Rd Multiple Residence Town House Residential 1-12000 Thomlinso Driveway n Cir Residential 1-15000 Residential 1-20000 Driveway Conservation Residential (2 Acres) Rd Penfield C enter Rd T

P Penfield Center Rural Residential (1 Acre) Rd R e

M i

U r Rural Agricultural (2 Acres) n e nam r e n d i Stre a et N Planned Development H n t L r ak o O p ld r ie i F a

F M illford Xing Atlantic Ave 286 A@ r D y

n et a L 28 k 6 w

y a e r A@ v o i l ad r l

w a D

l M o

r ²

d i F A@250 Un Coachman Dr named Street Sweets Corners Rd Brougham Dr Ontario Webster Driveway Phaeton Dr Irondequoit

R Thorn tree Cir d l

n e i L f Walworth Rochester Penfield n k Squire Ci y r e r o a d

o D w

r E d e d

B v R

n i r r

t s e

e t Brighton x Wo D b od b ly r n W h E ay

w g

i m

d n o i r t L East Rochester l e our l T C R Ci r i m l te l n H e r i C S

a h n e W a D v n h o o i y D l n s b

m b

k e r a u c p Macedon o Perinton h a p o D Pittsford r i J k a W h h e d a P le y n C R d R D a

r w r n

l e D

v b

s r u l l

r D D

i Farmingt o

C n Mendon Victor M Va t K

lley Gr a e n en Dr ple Le o m Po o nd

a m Vall d l e f d y C D Hil l ir lary Ln C riv R n i r a ew a a s

y i H

R r rl r

a F T B r y i o H r z

C e x a b L n y

t o Pe d w nb u ro oke Dr o o r

b n o dw M a den d e Hid d

R D P Cascad k e Dr d r r y

a a r

i r

P Route 250 w

C D

v k d i e

l o r Hillrise D o ay r o a W o D ord r lmsf h He w

d W

- e Penfiel e d Rd s n i R i r Corridor Study r Penfield Rd P 441 a Penfield Rd H A@ S k t r y i Tammy D 4 m r a 41 C D t o ee b W n tr @ S A r d o o e e d m r a nn st n U a L n o n C

u d P y

R a a

w d C r

n t W B o o Figure 4

C R l D

u o r r r a l i i r r s r t r o s

D b s t e r k h d s W D a i a b e p r O R d d l e t

l u o W n i L R n s

lt n H

t H u

w il

H x o i

H l

o l Dr o F m e ha P Penfield k ic ex Ct New W F Il e

l i 0750 1,500 3,000 M S Village Trl r Sai e D e nt A Feet Putting Green it n n Ln n i d A Brantle Gra rew nglew y Wa N s ood y Blv Ct Zoning d Golf Stream Dr Killeen Dr Project #06-4108 Village of Webster

e Rd Webster Stat

d oa R e at St Legend Study Area 250 A@ Local Roads County Roads Interstate Roads

n State Routes

s Plank Road k Railroad

a J Village Boundary Town Boundary Rt250 Land Use Agricultural Commercial Community Services Industrial

Penfield Center Road d

No Data or Unclassified

r r Public Services

a H Recreation & Entertainment Residential

286 Atlantic Avenue Vacant Land A@ 286 Penfield A@ Wild Land & Public Parks

Sweets Corners Rd

Ontario Webster Irondequoit

A@250 Rochester Penfield Walworth Whalen Road Brighton East Rochester

Pittsford Perinton Macedon

Farmington Mendon Victor Victor

Penfield Rd A@441 Route 250 Corridor Study Figure 5 Perinton A@250 Penfield

0 0.25 0.5 1 ² Miles Land Use East Rochester Project #06-4108 Rd

R Legend B

s Town Boundaries

a 1000 Foot Buffer W Villages Rt250 Local Roads Whitney Rd W County Roads Interstate Roads State Roads Real Zoning CEMETERIES 31F W COMMERCIAL A@ Ch urc INDUSTRIAL h St LIMITED COMMERCIAL

OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION

PARKS Village of 250 RESIDENTIAL A/AA Fairport A@ 31F RESIDENTIAL B A@ RESIDENTIAL C RESIDENTIAL SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION

l l RESTRICTED BUSINESS l na i H a HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

k C r u VILLAGE, STATE, RAILROAD LAND e T ri E Ayrault Rd ² A@31

Ontario 31 Webster A@ Irondequoit

Rochester Penfield Walworth

Brighton East Rochester

R Perinton Macedon l

l Pittsford

d u y R T nse Farmingt Gar Mendon Victor

¦¨§490

r Route 250 D 250 f if A@ l c d o o W Corridor Study A@96 Figure 6 Perinton 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Miles Victor Zoning Project #06-4108 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

and the area surrounding Route 31 and Route 250, most of the land is zoned Residential A (minimum 18,000 square foot lots) and Residential B (minimum 20,000 square foot lots). Within the Village of Fairport exists commercially zoned land, along with industrial land near the railroad tracks and residentially zoned areas.

As reflected in Figure 7: Perinton Land Use, most of the land along the corridor is also currently used for residential purposes. Pockets of commercial development exist mainly in the Village of Fairport and at the Route 31/Route 250 intersection. There are sections of vacant land as Route 250 approaches Route 96. This area consists of steep slopes and some wetlands which makes it difficult for development, which is why it is zoned “Open Space Preservation.”

All three towns have current land use patterns that correspond fairly well with the Towns’ adopted zoning code. This shows the towns willingness to follow their adopted code and ability to develop according to it.

Many areas of the corridor still have vacant and also underdeveloped land, “Figure 8: Vacant Land Use” shows all three municipalities with the vacant land use in red. The vacant land was identified using the land use files provided by each town and also by conducting field edits for confirmation. There is a total of 498.1 acres of vacant land within 1000 feet of Route 250 in all three municipalities. While some parcels fronting 250 may have additional acreage beyond the study area buffer, for the purposes of this study the parcels were clipped at the buffer to create a limit for building out the corridor.

The visual character of the Route 250 Corridor changes as traveling along it. Some stretches of the corridor are highly developed, including the intersection of Route 250/Main Street in Webster, Route 250/Route 441 in Penfield, and Route 250/Route 31 in Perinton. Other sections, such as north of Whalen Road in Penfield, are highly agricultural and undeveloped. There are also areas of dense woods, especially near Route 96 in Victor, and areas of new subdivisions, like along Route 250 north of the Village of Webster.

Page II-4

Penfield

A@250

East Rochester Legend Whitney Road Study Area Local Roads County Roads Interstate Roads A@31F State Routes Railroad Village Boundary Village of Town Boundary Ch Fairport ur ch Rt250 d S 31F R tr e l A@ Land Use l e i t

H Agricultural

l u a T Commercial n a Community Services C ie Industrial r E No Data or Unclassified Public Services Recreation & Entertainment Ayrault Rd Residential Perinton Vacant Land Wild Land & Public Parks

A@31 Ontario Webster d

l Irondequoit l

T Rochester Penfield Walworth

Brighton East Rochester Garnsey Road 250 A@ Pittsford Perinton Macedon ¨¦§490 Farmington Mendon Victor Victor Route 250 Corridor Study Figure 7 96 Victor A@ ¨¦§490 Perinton 0 0.25 0.5 1 ² Miles Land Use Project #06-4108 Lake Road Lake Ontario

Schlegel Road Legend Town Boundaries Klem Road Ontario Route 250 A@104 Local Roads County Roads A@404 Village of State Roads Webster Interstate Roads

d oa Irondequoit R Land Use te ta S All Other Values 250 A@ Vacant Land Plank Road

Rochester Penfield Center Road

Atlantic Avenue Penfield A@286 Walworth A@286 ² Brighton Whalen Road

441 Ontario A@ Webster d R

l Irondequoit i H

k Penfield Walworth r u T East Rochester Whitney Road Brighton East Rochester 31F A@ Village of Perinton Macedon Ch Pittsford ur Fairport ch S t re 31F et A@ Mendon Victor Farmington

l a Victor n a C Pittsford ie r E Perinton Macedon ¨¦§490 d

R 31

l l i A@ Route 250 H

Garnsey Road r u T Corridor Study A@250 Figure 8 A@96 Victor Vacant Mendon 0 0.5 1 1.5 Fa2rmington Miles Land Use 90 Project #06-4108 ¨¦§ Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

C. Environmental Constraints in the Corridor

According to the data provided to the consultant from each municipality, wetlands do overlap some of the corridor area, restricting development potential in some sections of the study area. There are no wetlands that occur in Webster crossing over Route 250, yet as the corridor progresses southward, there are some wetlands. North of Plank Road along 250 there are some wetlands that may inhibit development. There also are smaller sections of wetlands near Route 96 in Perinton.

Steep slopes are only an issue at the southern end of the corridor too near Route 96. The rest of the adjacent area near the corridor is relatively flat to gently rolling hills.

During the build out analysis, these environmental constraints were considered.

D. Review of Comprehensive Plans and Zoning

Each of the municipalities has a current comprehensive plan which lays the groundwork for future development within their towns and villages.

The goals of the 2000 Webster Comprehensive Plan include: 1. Requiring high standards of design, site planning, and landscaping. 2. Retaining and enhancing neighborhood character and aesthetic quality of new and existing developments. 3. Protecting environmentally sensitive areas in new developments.

Webster is developing faster than the other two towns, and therefore, open space preservation should be a priority. In order to act upon this preservation attempt, the town created an Open Space Committee and an Open Space Inventory. The town’s mechanisms for protecting open space are: 1. Created EPOD’s which protect sensitive areas from development. 2. Encourage cluster development, allowing only 50% of the land to be developable and the other half to be preserved.

Page II-5

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

3. Encourage conservation easement which gives benefits to tax payers who do not develop their land. This program is modeled after Perinton’s successful program. 4. Creation of an Agricultural Program Manager.

In Penfield, the “Town of Planned Progress,” the goals are to create a residential community, while preserving historical and architectural features, create diverse commercial services, parks and recreation opportunities, protect environmentally sensitive areas, and provide a major transportation network. In 2001, Penfield created an Open Space Plan. Selected parcels, mostly 20 acres or more, were designated to be open space. Agricultural and farmland preservation occurred as well by identifying seven farms to be maintained. These goals were obtained by using the Purchase of Development Rights for the properties.

Three recommendations that came as a result of the 2000 Penfield Comprehensive Plan include: 1. Access onto major collectors and minor arterial road systems should be limited. Residential development adjacent to these systems should incorporate plantings, berms and significantly increased setbacks/lot depths to maintain quality and privacy while anticipating future improvements to these roadways. 2. New development should be required to conform to the town’s Highway Frontage Policy, allowing a minimum number of access points onto major road systems in the town, without jeopardizing public safety. Input from the Penfield Transportation Committee on large scale commercial and residential development should be sought as projects are reviewed by the Planning Board. 3. The town should continue to review all new non-residential development and redevelopment to ensure that setbacks and buffers are incorporated that provide adequate visual and sound protection for adjoining residential areas. Minimum buffers and setbacks can be exceeded if, in the judgment

Page II-6

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

of the Board or official having jurisdiction, it is deemed necessary to accommodate adequate buffering.

In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the Town of Penfield Town Board established a special Land Use Advisory Committee to provide an analysis of existing land use patterns along the corridor and make recommendations for appropriate land use considerations to be integrated into this study. The Committee broke the corridor down into segments, each with its own individual character. Members focused on issues such as residential & rural character, natural settings, opportunities & functional limitations and established a vision for each segment. The end product of these efforts is a document entitled “Town of Penfield Land Use Analysis: A Component of the NYS Rte. 250 Corridor Study.” The creation of this document involved public involvement, data analysis, and visioning sessions. The findings of this report are utilized in the build out analysis portion of this study, and the full report is included as Appendix ‘B’.

In Perinton, the goals of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan are: 1. The land use plan shall provide for an economic and efficient distribution of public services and utilities. 2. Natural scenic and historic resources shall be given maximum possible protection. 3. Retain appropriate rural areas and protect the viability of agricultural activities in the Town. 4. Provide an adequate circulation system for future land use with maximum economy, safety and amenity and in scale with the demand. 5. Each section of Perinton should develop in a manner which reflects and respects its intrinsic natural conditions, past history, current function, and most appealing contemporary development to create, overall, a diverse and harmonious community identity.

The Land Use recommendations set forth in the plan are: 1. Reduce driveways onto arterial and collector streets.

Page II-7

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

2. Incentives to upgrade and revitalize vacant or underutilized properties. 3. Integrate open areas between developments.

All three municipalities mentioned that their bicycle and pedestrian network needs to be improved, focusing on alternative transportation methods instead of automobiles.

E. Population and Employment Projections from Genesee Transportation Council The Genesee Transportation Council created population and employment projections by TAZ for each municipality. See Table 2: Population Projections and Table 3: Employment Projections. Also, Figure 9: Household Change (Units) 2005 to 2025 and Figure 10: Household Change (%) 2005 to 2025 display household increases and decreases, while Figure 11: Employment Change (Jobs) 2005 to 2025 and Figure 12: Employment Change (%) 2005 to 2025 display the employment increases and decreases.

According to the population projections, the Town of Webster is the fastest growing municipality, both currently and in the projections. Both villages are expected to lose population within the next few decades, most likely as families continue to move out into new subdivision developments. Overall in the corridor, there is approximately a 3% growth rate from 2010 to 2040.

The employment projections differ from the population projections, in that Penfield is expected to have the largest growth. Penfield, according to the land use files, does have the most vacant and underutilized land, and therefore, the most opportunity for the creation of new businesses and therefore new jobs.

F. Recent Development Trends As of 2005, each of the municipalities had projects in the works that would affect the land use along Route 250. Table 4: Summary of Study Area Developments Identified in the 2005 Monroe County Land Use Monitoring Report shows the projects that are

Page II-8

Table 2: Population Projections Route 250 Corridor Study

Historical Projected 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Town of Webster 13,374 19,702 23,426 26,175 32,710 36,459 38,551 40,541 42,335 Village of Webster 3,060 5,037 5,499 5,464 5,216 5,158 5,107 5,064 5,021 Town of Penfield 12,601 23,782 27,201 30,219 34,645 37,030 38,044 39,316 40,366 Town of Perinton 7,593 21,609 32,359 37,072 40,350 41,690 42,753 43,647 44,367 Village of Fairport 5,507 6,474 5,970 5,943 5,740 5,737 5,730 5,724 5,712 TOTAL 42,135 76,604 94,455 104,873 118,661 126,074 130,185 134,292 137,801

Historical Projected

1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2020 2020-30 2030-40 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Town of Webster 47.3 18.9 11.7 25 11.5 5.7 5.2 4.4 Village of Webster 64.6 9.2 -0.6 -4.5 -1.1 -1 -0.8 -0.8 Town of Penfield 88.7 14.4 11.1 14.6 6.9 2.7 3.3 2.7 Town of Perinton 184.6 49.7 14.6 8.8 3.3 2.5 2.1 1.6 Village of Fairport 17.6 -7.8 -0.5 -3.4 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 TOTAL 81.8 23.3 11.0 13.1 6.2 3.3 3.2 2.6

Page II-9 Table 3: Employment Projections Route 250 Corridor Study

Current Projected 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Town of Webster 20566 22990 24711 26484 28309 30188 Town of Penfield 11513 14146 16517 19049 21741 24595 Town of Perinton 19784 23428 26530 29818 33291 36950 TOTAL 51863 60564 67758 75350 83341 91732

2000-2005 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Town of Webster 11.8 7.5 7.2 6.9 6.6 Town of Penfield 22.9 16.8 15.3 14.1 13.1 Town of Perinton 18.4 13.2 12.4 11.6 11.0 TOTAL 16.8 11.9 11.2 10.6 10.1

Page II-10 Table 4 Summary of Study Area Developments Identified in the 2007 Monroe County Land Use Monitoring Report Municipality Status Project Name Address TAZ Land Use Lots Units Acreage Gross Floor Area Fairport Approved Walgreens of Perinton, NY 6707, 6709 Pittsford-Palmyra Rd 380 442 1 1 1.9 14550

Cumulative Report on the Status of Major Projects: 1992-2006 Municipality Status Project Name Address TAZ Land Use Lots Units Acreage Gross Floor Area Penfield Approved Evangelical Church of Fairport 1725 Fairport Nine Mile Road 146 620 1 1 15 10000 Penfield Approved Kids First Childcare 1651 Five Mile Line Road 368 600 1 24.1 8382 Penfield Approved Windham Woods Subdivisions 1360 Five Mile Line Road 139 210 56 56 38.8 Penfield Under Construction Camden Park 1090 State Road 134 210 74 74 33.86 Penfield Under Construction Villas at East Hampton 1046 State Road 134 210 1 124 28.7 Webster Under Construction Providence Est. Phase II & III Route 250 & Schlegel 120 210 21 23 Webster Under Construction Belvidere Town Houses - Section 2 Webster Road 113 411 34 14.83 Fairport Pending Approval 80 North Main Street 80 North Main Street 158 400 1 1 0.493 10350 Fairport Pending Approval Walgreens Pharmacy 110-120 South Main Street 163 450 1 1 0.8887 9894 Fairport Under Construction Irish Pyb/Restaurant 17 Liftbridge Lane 158 421 1 1 5299

Potential Development: 2008-2010 Municipality Status Project Name Address TAZ Land Use Lots Units Acreage Gross Floor Area Penfield Unamed Development No Address 151 60000

Page II-11 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

currently proposed or under construction along the Route 250 corridor in each municipality.

G. Roadway Geometry Route 250 traverses north-south from Lake Rd in Webster at the boundary of Lake Ontario to Route 96 in Perinton near the Town of Victor boundary. There are nineteen travel signals along the 16 mile corridor, with three of these occurring at the entrance to local shopping centers and the other 16 occurring at traffic intersections.

For most of the corridor, the road is 2 lanes. However, at certain intersections, the lanes do widen to accommodate for traffic. The widest intersections along the study corridor are Route 96 (2 lanes in each direction with a median), Route 31 (2 lanes in each direction with a center left-turn lane) and Route 441 (2 lanes in each direction with a median). Existing intersection geometry is shown at the major intersections under study along the Route 250 corridor on Figure 13: Existing Intersection Geometry. As shown on Figure 14: Posted Speed Limits on Route 250, the speed limit along Route 250 varies from 30mph in the Village of Fairport and the Village of Webster, up to 55mph in the undeveloped stretch between Penfield and Webster.

Between 1989 and the present, there were a total of 70 driveway permits along Route 250. See Table 5: NYSDOT Highway Work Permits on NYS Route 250 1989 to Present. The highest years for driveway permits were 2004 (8 permits), 1994 (7 permits) and 1999 (7 permits).

Page II-12

Lake Road Lake Ontario

Schlegel Road

Klem Road Ontario Legend Webster Local Roads A@104 County Roads State Roads A@404 Village of Interstate Roads Webster Rt250 Speed Limits

ad 30 Ro e at Irondequoit St 40 250 A@ 45 Plank Road 50 55

Penfield Center Road

Atlantic Avenue Penfield A@286 Walworth A@286 ² Whalen Road Brighton

441 A@ Ontario Webster

Irondequoit Penfield Walworth East Rochester Hill Rd Turk Whitney Road Brighton 31F East Rochester A@ Village of C Pittsford Perinton Macedon hu Fairport rc h St re 31F et A@ Mendon Victor Farmingto

l Vi t a n a C Pittsford e i r E Macedon ¦¨§490 31 Route 250 Perinton A@ Garnsey Road

Turk Hill Rd Turk Corridor Study

A@250 Figure 14 Posted Speed A@96 Victor 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Mendon FarmingtonMiles Limits Project #06-4108 Table 5 NYSDOT Highway Work Permits on NYS Route 250 1989 to 2006

Driveway Permit Perinton Fairport Penfield Webster Total Residential 6 2 5 16 29 Minor Commercial 319619 Major Commercial 10203 Subdivision Street 304512 Temp Access Road or Street 30317 TOTAL 16 3 23 28 70

Year of Permit Perinton Fairport Penfield Webster Total 1989 00224 1990 00123 1991 10001 1992 00101 1993 20125 1994 40307 1995 10405 1996 20103 1997 22116 1998 20103 1999 41117 2000 00000 2001 20204 2002 30115 2003 10214 2004 10168 2005 00000 2006 10124 TOTAL 26 3 23 18 70

Page II-13 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

The driveway density was calculated for the municipalities by block range. Table 6: Route 250 Driveway Density by Block and Municipality shows these calculations. The highest density for a municipality occurred in Fairport Village, where there were 40.74 driveways/mile on the east side of 250 and 41.57 driveways/mile on the west side of 250. For a specific block, the highest density occurred between Church Street and Hulbert Ave in Fairport Village with 92.15 driveways/mile.

Table 6 Access Management Features – Driveway and Driveway Density Village Village Town of of Town of Town of of Total Driveway Inventory Webster Webster Penfield Perinton Fairport Corridor Driveways on East Side of Route 250 87 43 72 67 49 318 Driveways on West Side of Route 250 87 38 74 88 50 337 Driveways, Both Sides of Route 250 174 81 146 155 99 655 Length of Route 250 (miles) 3.55 1.07 5.19 4.89 1.20 15.91 East Driveways/Mile 24.51 40.02 13.87 13.70 40.74 19.99 West Driveways/Mile 24.51 35.37 14.26 17.99 41.57 21.18

**Town totals DO NOT include village totals

H. Daily Traffic Volumes As documented by the Monroe County Department of Transportation, the daily traffic on Route 250 is 5,130 to 18,900 vehicles per day, as seen in Figure 15: Webster 2005 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes, Figure 16: Penfield 2005 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes and Figure 17: Perinton 2005 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes. The three highest traffic locations are Route 31/Route 250 in Perinton, Route 441/Route 250 in Penfield, and Church St/Route 250 in Fairport Village.

I. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A detailed traffic data collection program was conducted in order to quantify existing morning and evening peak period traffic flow on the Route 250 corridor. Intersection

Page II-14

Lake Rd 147 Lake Ontario 2 1 201

P Legend

Rt250 5130 Villages 1234 AADT Volumes 1235 Schlegel Rd

W all Rd 0

6 4600 2600 Klem Rd Webster ²

Ontario 0 Webster

6 Irondequoit

1 Rochester Penfield Walworth A@104 Brighton East Rochester

Pittsford Perinton Macedon

Main St 8470 Mendon Victor Farmingt 13410 Rd. Ridge A@404 Route 250 Village of Webster Corridor Study

4800 Figure 15 Webster

d oa 2005 Average Annual R 0 0.25 0.5 te ta Miles Penfield S Daily Traffic Volumes

Project #06-4108 Webster

d oa R e at St

Plank Rd 5238 2958

s Legend

J Rt250

Northrup Rd 2

2 Villages

1 1234 AADT Volumes

Penfield Center Rd d

286 Atlantic Ave A@ 9340 5470 A@286 ² Penfield

A@250 Ontario Webster Irondequoit

0 Rochester Walworth 2 Penfield 0 3 1 Brighton East Rochester

Pittsford Perinton Macedon

n Whalen R i 800 d l 0 b u Mendon Victor Farmingt D

8 1 Route 250 441 30710 16300 A@ 441 Corridor Study A@ Pe n fie ld R d

0 Figure 16

1 Penfield

0 0.25 0.5 2005 Average Annual Miles Perinton Daily Traffic Volumes

d Project #06-4108 1 Penfield

0 t

East Rochester 4

Whitney Rd W

4 31F 7 W 4 @ Ch A urc 1 h St 27690 11 910 Legend Village of 250 Fairport A@ Rt250 A@31F Villages

R 1234 AADT Volumes l

l a l i

n 0 H a 5

C r 1 u

e T ri 4 E 1

12050 Ayrault Rd 12575 Perinton

0 ² 0 9 31 8 A@ 1 24 560 24150 31 Ontario A@ Webster Irondequoit

Rochester Penfield Walworth 11400 Brighton East Rochester

H Perinton Macedon

14240 Pittsford

d 5260 u y R T nse Gar 2600 Mendon Victor Farmingt

0 490 5 ¦¨§ 1 7

r 10000 D 250 f if A@ l c d Route 250 o o W Corridor Study 96 2 A@ 1220

25 000 Figure 17 Perinton Victor 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 2005 Average Annual Miles A@96 Daily Traffic Volumes

Project #06-4108 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

turning movement counts were conducted at the following 12 cross street intersections with Route 250:

Orchard Street Penfield Road (NYS Route 441) Main Street (NYS Route 404) Whitney Road Sanford Road Church Street Plank Road Ayrault Road Atlantic Avenue NYS Route 31 Whalen Road NYS Route 96

In addition, during the course of the study and based on steering committee feedback, the intersection of Route 250 and Garnsey Road was added into the study area and a traffic count was provided by the New York State Department of Transportation.

All intersection turning movement counts were performed between 7:00 to 9:00 AM for the morning peak period and between 4:00 to 6:00 PM for the evening peak period. Existing traffic count data is provided in Appendix ‘C’ of this report.

In addition, additional signal warrant studies were conducted at several intersections in the Town of Penfield as a separate effort, including at the intersections of Route 250 at Sweets Corner Road, the newly constructed YMCA, and Penbrooke Drive. The findings and data collected as part of this signal warrant analysis are included in Appendix ‘D’ of this report.

Existing morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes are displayed on Figures 18 and 19, respectively.

Page II-15

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

J. Existing Traffic Operations

In order to evaluate existing peak hour traffic flow along the Route 250 corridor, we need to determine its capacity or operational constraints. In order to do this, traffic engineers conduct intersection Level of Service analyses. The Level of Service (LOS) analysis methodology for analyzing signalized and non-signalized intersections is documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000). The computer software (SYNCHRO 7.0 Build 759) uses HCM procedures and was used in the analysis. Levels range from A to F, with A describing traffic operations with little or no delay and F describing traffic operations with long delays. Levels of Service of ‘D’ or better generally are considered acceptable. Levels of Service for signalized intersections are expressed in terms of control per vehicle. Full definitions of Level of Service for signalized intersections are included in Appendix ‘E.’

Essential data that is fed into the Synchro analysis includes the peak hour traffic volumes, heavy vehicle percentages, peaking characteristics of traffic flow, intersection geometry, signal timing, bus activity, and pedestrian crossing data (if any). This information is then used to evaluate how each travel lane, directional approach and the overall intersection is operating. Based upon the existing traffic volumes, a Level of Service was assigned for each major intersection along the Route 250 Corridor, as shown in Table 7: Existing Peak Hour Operations Summary. The overall intersection operations of each intersection evaluated is depicted in Figure 20: Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service and Figure 21: Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service. The Level of Service printouts are provided in Appendix ‘F’.

A discussion of the operation of each intersection follows:

Route 96/Route 250 Intersection The Route 96 intersection currently operates at an overall Level of Service (LOS) ‘B’ or better for both the morning and evening peak hours.

Page II-16

Lake Road Lake Ontario

Schlegel Road

Klem Road Ontario Webster (! A@104

(! Village of 404 A@ (! Webster

Rochester d oa Legend R te ta S (! Overall LOS C or Better A@250 Irondequoit (! Overall LOS D (! Plank Road Study Area

Penfield Center Road

(! Atlantic Avenue Penfield 286 Walworth A@286 A@ Brighton Whalen Road (! ² (! A@441 Ontario Webster

East Rochester Hill Rd Turk Whitney Road Irondequoit (! Penfield Walworth 31F A@ Village of (! Brighton C hu Fairport rc East Rochester h St re et A@31F Pittsford Perinton Macedon

l a n Farmingto a Ayrault Road Mendon Victor Pittsford C (! ie Vi t r E Macedon ! Perinton ¦¨§490 ( A@31 Garnsey Road

(! Hill Rd Turk Route 250 A@250 Corridor Study (! Figure 20 96 Victor A@ Farmington Existing AM Peak Hour Mendon Level of Service 00.51 ¦¨§90 Miles

Project #06-4108 Lake Road Lake Ontario

Schlegel Road

Klem Road Ontario Webster (! A@104

(! Village of 404 A@ (! Webster

Rochester d oa Legend R te ta S (! Overall LOS C or Better A@250 Irondequoit (! Overall LOS D (! Plank Road Study Area

Penfield Center Road

(! Atlantic Avenue Penfield 286 Walworth A@286 A@ Brighton Whalen Road (! ² (! A@441 Ontario Webster

East Rochester Hill Rd Turk Whitney Road Irondequoit (! Penfield Walworth 31F A@ Village of (! Brighton C hu Fairport rc East Rochester h St re et A@31F Pittsford Perinton Macedon

l a n Farmingto a Ayrault Road Mendon Victor Pittsford C (! ie Vi t r E Macedon ! Perinton ¦¨§490 ( A@31 Garnsey Road

(! Hill Rd Turk Route 250 A@250 Corridor Study (! Figure 21 96 Victor A@ Farmington Existing PM Peak Hour Mendon Level of Service 90 00.51 ¦¨§ Miles

Project #06-4108 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Garnsey Road/Route 250 Intersection The Garnsey Road intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for the evening peak hour and LOS ‘B’ for the morning peak hour.

Route 31/Route 250 Intersection The Route 31 intersection overall currently operates at an acceptable overall LOS “B” during morning peak hour and LOS ‘C’ during the evening peak hour. However, the Eastbound and Westbound PM approaches operate at a LOS ‘D’ which is considered congested.

Ayrault Road/Route 250 Intersection The Ayrault Road intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for both the evening peak hour and the morning peak hour.

Church Street/Route 250 Intersection The Church Street intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for the morning peak hour and LOS ‘D’ for the evening peak hour. The westbound Church Street approach operates at LOS ‘D’ during both the morning and evening peak hours.

Whitney Road/Route 250 Intersection The Whitney Road intersection currently operates at LOS ‘D’ for both the morning peak hour and the evening peak hours. The eastbound Whitney Road approach operates at LOS ‘F’ during the evening peak hour, and the westbound Whitney Road approach operates at LOS ‘E’ during the morning peak hour.

Page II-17

Table 7 Existing Peak Hour Level of Service Summary

2005 Existing Conditions Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Control Control Delay Level of Delay Level of (seconds) Service (seconds) Service Route 96 EB 5 A 8 A WB 10 B 11 B SB 16 B 19 B Overall 10 A 10 B Garnsey Road EB 21 C 33 C WB 22 C 13 B NB 6 A 21 C SB 12 B 16 B Overall 14 B 22 C Route 31 EB 29 C 37 D WB 34 C 38 D NB 25 C 31 C SB 34 C 31 C Overall 32 C 35 C Ayrault Road EB 28 C 32 C WB 31 C 30 C NB 22 C 23 C SB 27 C 24 C Overall 27 C 27 C Church Street EB 30 C 20 C WB 36 D 44 D NB 16 B 25 C SB 26 C 43 D Overall 28 C 36 D Whitney Road EB 27 C 85 F WB 77 E 42 D NB 36 D 40 D SB 32 C 36 D Overall 46 D 53 D Route 441 EB 38 D 54 D WB 46 D 39 D NB 40 D 45 D SB 42 D 58 E Overall 43 D 51 D Whalen Road EB 22 C 38 D WB 32 C 23 C NB 13 B 19 B SB 11 B 16 B Overall 16 B 24 C Atlantic Avenue EB 24 C 50 D WB 39 D 24 C NB 16 B 32 C SB 14 B 17 B Overall 22 C 31 C Plank Road EB 21 C 22 C WB 24 C 21 C NB 9 A 13 B SB 6 A 8 A Overall 12 B 14 B Sanford Street EB 23 C 25 C NB 6 A 4 A SB 5 A 3 A Overall 8 A 6 A Main Street (Route 404) EB 26 C 39 D WB 32 C 42 D NB 17 B 20 B SB 20 B 34 C Overall 22 C 33 C Orchard Street EB 26 C 17 B WB 28 C 20 B NB 3 A 9 A SB 4 A 6 A Overall 7 A 11 B

Page II-18 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Route 441/Route 250 Intersection The Route 441 intersection currently operates at LOS ‘D’ for both the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour. The southbound Route 250 approach operates at LOS ‘E’ during the evening peak hour. All other approaches operate at LOS ‘D’ during both the morning and evening peak hours.

Whalen Road/Route 250 Intersection The Whalen Road intersection currently operates at LOS ‘B’ for the morning peak hour and LOS ‘C’ for the evening peak hour. The eastbound Whalen Road approach operates at LOS ‘D’ during the evening peak hour.

Atlantic Avenue/Route 250 Intersection The Atlantic Avenue intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for both the morning and the evening peak hours. The westbound Atlantic Avenue approach operates at LOS ‘D’ during the morning peak hour and the eastbound Atlantic Avenue approach operates at LOS ‘D’ during the evening peak hour.

Plank Road/Route 250 Intersection The Plank Road currently operates at LOS ‘B’ for both the morning and evening peak hours.

Sanford Street/Route 250 Intersection The Sanford Street intersection currently operates at LOS ‘A’ for both the evening peak hour and the morning peak hour.

Main Street (Route 404)/Route 250 Intersection The Main Street (Route 404) intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for both the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour. The Main Street approaches operate at LOS ‘D’ during the evening peak hour.

Page II-19

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Orchard Street/Route 250 Intersection The Orchard Street intersection currently operates at LOS ‘A’ for the morning peak hour and LOS ‘B’ for the evening peak hour.

K. Crash History A detailed review of crashes was conducted to identify high crash locations as summarized in Table 8: High Crash Locations for the Route 250 Corridor. Crash data was provided by the New York State Department of Transportation for a three- year period (2001-2003), and this data was summarized by location. Next, the crash rate of each intersection or midblock location was determined and then compared to a state average crash rate. As shown in Table 8, the highest rate for the Route 250 corridor occurred between the Target Plaza Signal and Route 441 in Penfield. The rate at this location was 9.57 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled, which was approximately 3.5 times as high as the next closest High Crash Location at the section of Route 250 between Route 441 and Penbrooke Drive. The highest intersection crash locations were the intersection of Route 250 with Penfield Road (Route 441) with an crash rate of 2.63 accidents per million entering vehicles, followed by the intersection of Route 250 with Route 31 with an accident rate of 1.22 crashes per million entering vehicles. It should be noted that the intersection of Route 250 and Route 441 was improved in 2002 as part of the Route 441 (Penfield Road) improvements. Do to the limits of this study, the analysis of more recent crash data was not possible. As a result of these intersection improvements, some reduction in the overall intersection crash rate should be expected. We recommend that more recent crash data be reviewed as a follow-on effort to determine if crash rates on Route 250 between Route 441 and the Target signal have improved.

Page II-20

Table 8 High Crash Rate Locations (2001-2003) Route 250 Corridor

NYSDOT Location Municipality Crash Totals Crash Rate Average Rates Route 441/Route 250* Penfield 44 2.63 0.46 Intersection Route 31/Route 250 Perinton 58 1.22 0.46 Target Plaza to Route 441* Penfield 33 9.57 0.6 Route 441 to Penbrooke* Penfield 19 2.81 2.19 Church Street to Whitney Road Fairport 28 2.59 2.19 Klem Rd to Schlegel Webster 10 2.48 2.19 Penbrooke to Whalen Penfield 17 2.37 2.19 Atlantic Ave to Penfield Center Penfield 14 2.03 2.19 Briar Way/Margo Rd to Park Circle/Hulburt Fairport 8 1.78 2.19 104 to Klem Rd Webster 23 1.68 2.19 Midblock Whitney Road to Fairpoint Rd Perinton 23 1.67 2.19 Route 96 to Woodcliff Dr. Perinton 9 1.64 2.19 Schlegel to Lake Rd Webster 15 1.59 2.19 State St to Route 104 Webster 24 1.51 2.19 Woodcliff Dr. to Garnsey Rd. Perinton 8 1.46 2.19 Whalen Rd to Atlantic Ave Penfield 28 1.38 2.19 Penfield Center to Plank Rd Penfield 19 1.35 2.19 Fairpoint to Target Signal Penfield 11 1.34 2.19 Entire Study Corridor - 660 2.66 3.66 Accident Rate expressed in accidents per Million entering vehicles for intersection accidents. Accident Rate expressed in accidents per Million vehicle miles traveled for midblock accidents. Shading indicates locations where the crash rate exceeds the NYSDOT Average crash rate for a similar roadway or intersection. * Improvements constructed since 2003 - crash rates shown may not be indicative of current safety conditions at these locations

Page II-21 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

L. Public Transit Services

Route 250 is served by a variety of RTS (Rochester Transit System) bus routes, as shown on Figure 22: Bus Routes. Bus Routes cross over 250 at multiple locations, including Route 404 (Main Street) in Webster, Route 441 (Penfield Road) in Penfield, Route 31F (Church Street) in the Village of Fairport, Route 31 (Pittsford-Palmyra Road) in Perinton, and at Route 96 at the Perinton/Victor boundary.

Along with crossing the Route 250 corridor, the RTS bus service also travels along the corridor. Route 22 travels along 250 between Whalen Road and Route 441, Route 21 travels between Route 441 and Church Street, and Route 92 travels between Route 31 and Route 96. While some sections of 250 are not serviced by an RTS bus route, there are many bus stations that provide easy accessibility to a route. Most busses run hourly during peak travel time (AM and PM) and do not run through lunch time. They run between 6am and 7pm and average about 45 minutes travel time from the start of the route until the end.

M. Pedestrian Accommodations

Bike accessibility is ranked as “Good” along most of the Route 250 corridor, except for in Fairport Village where it is ranked as “Fair,” as shown on Figure 23: Bike Rideability. This scale was developed and rated by the Rochester Bicycling Club (RBC). Each town however mentioned in their comprehensive plan about improving bicycle access along the 250 Corridor. The RBC rating system takes into account roadway features that help or hinder bike travel, such as wide shoulders, on-street parking, street grates, and presence of heavy vehicles. This is an informal, rating scale that provides a qualitative rating, and it is should be considered as a rating for experienced bike riders (who tend to prefer traveling on-road), not casual or recreational bike riders (who tend to prefer traveling off-road).

Page II-22

Lake Road Lake Ontario

Schlegel Road

Klem Road Ontario Webster Legend Study Area 104 A@ RTS Bus Routes 017 A@404 Village of 021 Webster 022 030

ad 092- Express Ro e at Irondequoit St Local Roads A@250 County Roads Plank Road State Roads Interstate Routes

Penfield Center Road

Atlantic Avenue Penfield A@286 Walworth A@286 ² Whalen Road Brighton

441 A@ Ontario Webster

Irondequoit Penfield Walworth East Rochester Hill Rd Turk Whitney Road Brighton 31F East Rochester A@ Village of C Pittsford Perinton Macedon hu Fairport rc h St re 31F et A@ Mendon Victor Farmingto

l Vi t a n a C Pittsford e i r E Macedon ¦¨§490 Perinton A@31 Route 250 Garnsey Road Turk Hill Rd Turk Corridor Study A@250 Figure 22

96 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Mendon A@ Victor FarmingtonMiles Bus Routes

Project #06-4108 Lake Road Lake Ontario

Schlegel Road

Klem Road Ontario Webster Legend 104 A@ Study Area Rideability 404 A@ Village of Fair Webster Good Local Roads d oa R County Roads te ta Irondequoit S State Roads 250 A@ Interstate Routes Plank Road

Penfield Center Road

Atlantic Avenue Penfield A@286 Walworth A@286 ² Whalen Road Brighton

441 A@ Ontario Webster

Irondequoit Penfield Walworth East Rochester Hill Rd Turk Whitney Road Brighton 31F East Rochester A@ Village of C Pittsford Perinton Macedon hu Fairport rc h St re 31F et A@ Mendon Victor Farmingto Vi t Pittsford Perinton Macedon ¦¨§490 A@31 Route 250

Garnsey Road

Turk Hill Rd Turk Corridor Study A@250 Figure 23 Bike A@96 Victor 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Mendon FarmingtonMiles Rideability

Project #06-4108 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Figure 24: Pedestrian Accommodations shows sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, and crosswalks for the intersections along the Route 250 Corridor. Sidewalks exist at certain, but not all, sections of the 250 corridor. In Perinton, a small stretch of sidewalk occurs north of Garnsey Road before Cannock Dr along the right hand side. Sidewalks begin again at Boxwood Lane on both sides of Route 250 and continue on either both sides or one side until the Penfield border. In Penfield, sidewalks begin at New Wickham Drive on both sides of Route 250 and go up until Penbrooke Drive. From this point northward until the site of the new YMCA. A sideway is provided on the east side of Route 250 . Sidewalks in Webster begin at Pontiac Street and go until Orchard Street.

Page II-23

Lake Road Lake Ontario

Schlegel Road

Klem Road Ontario Webster Legend A@104 Sidewalks (!(! Both Sides Right Side (!(! Village of 404 (! A@ Webster Study Area (! Pedestrian Signals d oa R te (! Crosswalks a Irondequoit St A@250 Plank Road

Penfield Center Road

Atlantic Avenue Penfield 286 Walworth 286 A@ ² A@

Brighton Whalen Road Ontario (!(! Webster (! A@441 Irondequoit Penfield Walworth

Brighton

East Rochester Hill Rd Turk (!(! Whitney Road East Rochester Pittsford Perinton Macedon 31F A@ Village of (!(! C (! hu Fairport rc h Victor Farmingto St Mendon re (! et A@31F Vi t

l a n a Ayrault Road Pittsford C (!(! ie r E Macedon (! Perinton ¦¨§490 (! Route 250 A@31 Corridor Study Garnsey Road Turk Hill Rd Turk A@250 Figure 24 Pedestrian 00.511.522.5 Mendon 96 Miles A@ Victor Farmington Accommodations

Project #06-4108 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Chapter III: Future Conditions and Buildout Analysis

In order to determine the future transportation needs along a transportation corridor, a comprehensive transportation planning study must assess the potential for future growth to occur both within and external to the study corridor. For the Route 250 Corridor Study, this required the assistance of the involved municipalities, Monroe County, and the Genesee Transportation Council to evaluate the following transportation and planning aspects of the corridor.

A. Build Out Analysis A Build Out analysis was conducted for the entire Route 250 corridor to assess the potential for vacant and “underutilized” land to be re-developed at a higher density. In this study, underutilized land was defined as land that was currently being used in a lower classification than it was zoned. The use of the term “underutilized” selected for this study does not, in any way, imply that the current use does not have value; simply, it is a measure of the maximum density of development that could occur on a property given the existing zoning.

Agricultural land was the lowest classification, followed by residential, commercial, and industrial land being the highest classification. Agricultural land that was being used as agriculture was also deemed underutilized because of the specific zoning code set forth by the municipalities, in which residences can actually be built upon agricultural land.

Once the amount of land that was vacant or underutilized was determined, that land was built out per existing zoning regulations in terms of number of homes that could be built on that parcel, or total square footage of commercial space. Then, the total households and the total square footage of commercial space were turned into potential trips using ITE guidelines. This produced future traffic volumes that were measured against the regional traffic model maintained by the Genesee Transportation Council. The results of that analysis are provided in Section “B” of this chapter.

Page III-1

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

In Webster, most of the vacant land is located north of Route 104, as seen on Figures 25A and Figure 25B: Webster Vacant and Underutilized Land. There is a total of 126.1acres of vacant land within 1000 feet of Route 250 in Webster. All of the underutilized land in the buffered area, totaling 59.98 acres, is within the Village boundaries and consists mostly of commercial properties located within industrial-zoned property. Some other underutilized properties are residentially-used properties located in commercially zoned land.

In Penfield, there are large sections of vacant and underutilized land, as shown on Figures 26A and 26B: Penfield Vacant and Underutilized Land. The reason for the large quantities of underutilized land is because of the exact specifications of the Rural Agricultural Zoning classification. The Rural Agricultural – 2 (RA-2) zoning classification was created as a result of a recommendation of the 1978 Master Plan. This zoning classification requires that subdivision development occur at a minimum of two acres per lot rather than the one-acre required in the RR-1 district. The rationale for requiring two acres per lot in the eastern portion of the town was to preserve and protect Penfield’s agricultural heritage by discouraging the subdivision of land to develop tract housing similar to that experienced in the western portions of Penfield. More recently, this approach has proved to actually chew up more land per home than necessary, compared to a more traditional subdivision. Besides the land classified as underutilized, some vacant parcels exist throughout the corridor that could be developed upon. In Penfield, there are 422.56 acres of underutilized land, and 262.14 vacant acres within 1000 feet of Route 250.

In Perinton, there are very few underutilized parcels and minimal vacant land, as displayed on Figures 27A and 27B: Perinton Vacant and Underutilized Land. The underutilized land totals 11.51 acres and the vacant land totals 116.24 acres. Most of the vacant land (8.91 of the 11.51 acres, or 77%) is in the southern portion of the corridor, near Route 96, and as was mentioned, is mostly undevelopable due to steep slopes and wetlands. Some vacant parcels exist in the northern section of the corridor, west of Route 250, and may be prime for development.

Page III-2

WD Lake Ontario Lake Rd Lake Rd Legend Underutilized Land Town Boundaries 1000 Foot Buffer LL Vacant Land Rt250 Local Roads County Roads lk e Wa Interstate Roads Lak State Roads Webster Zoning Class I Neighborhood Commercial Central Business Class II Low Intensity Commercial Neighborhood Business Lake Point Dr Planned Unit Development Residential R1-13.6 R_2 R-1 Large Lot Residential R-2 Residential R1-9.6 Residential R-M Low Medium Residential District Medium High Residential

d Residential R2-9.6

R_1 s R-3

l Waterfront Development Woodhull Rd i

P West End Business District Office Park Industrial Sagebrook Way ²

Ontario Webster Irondequoit

2 Rochester Walworth NY Penfield

Brighton East Rochester

Pittsford Perinton Macedon

eadowwood Dr M Mendon Victor Farmingt Route 250 S urrey Garden Way Corridor Study

R_3 Wall Rd IN Figure 25A Webster Vacant &

0250 500 1,000 1,500 Underutilized Klem Rd Feet Land Project #06-4108 Wall Rd

Klem Rd Legend Underutilized Land Town Boundaries 1000 Foot Buffer IN Vacant Land Rt250 R_3 Local Roads County Roads A@250 Interstate Roads State Roads Webster Zoning Class I Neighborhood Commercial Conifer Cove Ln Central Business Class II Low Intensity Commercial Neighborhood Business Planned Unit Development Residential R1-13.6 R-1 Large Lot Residential

0 5 R-2 MHR 2 Y Residential R1-9.6

N Residential R-M Low Medium Residential District Medium High Residential G-I R2-9.6 Orchard Rd Residential R2-9.6 R-3 Waterfront Development Donovan St West End Business District Office Park OP Industrial R-M LC_2

104 t R-M

P.U.D. k

B ² 404 N-B HC WEB R-M R2-9.6 A@ Ontario Webster C-B Irondequoit Ridge Rd. MC Rochester Walworth MC Penfield R2-9.6 R1-9.6 Brighton Sanford St East Rochester MHR R-M Fuller Ave Perinton Macedon P.U.D. Pittsford

Victor Farm Mendon Victor R1-13.6

Village of Webster Route 250 R_3 R_3 Corridor Study

e Rd Stat R_3 Figure 25B

R2-9.6 Webster Vacant &

0250 500 1,000 1,500 Underutilized Feet Land Project #06-4108 r

L D

y y

r e

r l

e Rd w b e a t r a e t l F S t

r s

i i

h B C ai nb T rid e ge L

g n

d C oa

Angean Dr

Marchner Rd Legend Underutilized Land Vacant Land Town Boundaries 1000 Foot Buffer Rt250 Local Roads County Roads

r Interstate Roads

b State Roads

W P Zoning as sin g Business Non Retail Cr ee k Dr General Business Limited Business Multiple Residence ay W Wildleaf Dr e at Town House eg bl ta Residential 1-12000 Plank Rd S Residential 1-15000

Plank Rd Residential 1-20000

d Conservation Residential (2 Acres)

s Rural Residential (1 Acre)

k d

J T Rural Agricultural (2 Acres)

l i Planned Development

r i Allen Rd

a J A@250 ²

Northrup Rd Northrup Rd Ontario Webster Irondequoit

Driveway Thomlinson Cir Rochester Penfield Walworth

Brighton East Rochester

Pittsford Perinton Macedon Penfield Center Rd Penfield Center Rd Mendon Victor Farmingt

H Route 250 Corridor Study Figure 26A Atlantic Ave A@286 Penfield Vacant r D

n e

L k

r d

o a

l & Underutilized M a 01,500750 M Feet Land Project #06-4108 A@ 286

@ A A tlantic Ave

lw e n

o i H r N s D r t le r t

n d o e

L k d p i r a F y i

r d a

o a F

l M

k Legend c 250 a J A@ Underutilized Land Vacant Land Town Boundaries 1000 Foot Buffer Coach Unnam man Dr ed Stre et Sweets Corners Rd Rt250 Local Roads

Brougham Dr County Roads Interstate Roads State Roads Zoning Business Non Retail General Business

d Limited Business

r n

n i i

C Multiple Residence b

e u

r d

i t

r Town House

b r

k Driveway o

c h Residential 1-12000 o T C R h W ev r h ay ill D s C Residential 1-15000 Gle h ir e ndonwoo ire k d Dr D o r d Residential 1-20000

o R Wood r lyn s Wa b y t y

t h Conservation Residential (2 Acres) a

x Folkestone g Ln i S

e R

r d r i H o

D Rural Residential (1 Acre)

R C

l d l n Ln l l

i i i

n n R l m h e w o g b a v d

s Rural Agricultural (2 Acres) e l o u h i M D k e

n D V i

c r

e f

a D d a n p J Planned Development

n d e

m i o o d a h

P w E h C s r

a W P

a y U nnamed Street

Whalen Rd t Driveway C

r i

m C

r o t

a d n

V F n o

a l

r a l

l i m T

l l R

e l ² H y

y a z Pond V a e lley Cir G l H a Dr L p iv r e

e w a ay e

M n Maple view C D ir r r D

k r Creeksid la e C w r ir i o d C

a y Ontario e d

M o Webster

Hidden Mdw P Irondequoit

C Lot ascade Dr Par Parking d king Lot

R Rochester Walworth k Penfield r D a ri P v r e i t

n w r C

e a

D r l L y k Brighton a o e D

g k h Ln o y n r a o d d W i o sford W m o o l B e East Rochester k r H - o r b o s

e i a n w r ew e l n P r i P b d

a P m e

H ra R Macedon B Pittsford Perinton Penfi p eld Rd m a Penfield Rd Road R nnecting Co Penfield Rd 441 Mendon Victor Farmingt Crown @ A Oak Dr N

r D

y s a De r vo e W n t sh n

d i re Braunston Dr u n C ir H o

i w

o C

l d

h R

W rt

n Route 250

o H o

w s u

t t r i n

a a

t C y h e

e C r

s r r w

i d

D e D

h R

v l

s i r l C i l s r Corridor Study Sil n ve r F a ox P D H S D r w

e n m

o y P x L l

l e b W o l indsor W e a y e

r r F

a F i

l ts L

r y r r n

d x am T C u t

R C

y o Figure 26B r t

u n

o r

P e

e n S Vill l age Trl

C M Dr e e Penfield Vacant it an n r i B G Saint A k rantle N ndrews Blvd r y Way Pa Anglewood Ct e Ca d pt en iv R a Killeen Dr Xi ng & Underutilized 01,500750 Brunson Way Fairpoint Dr Columbia Ct Feet Sanibel Dr Land Project #06-4108 r

l Valley V C D iew D t r tree P S S i l ed a l m ve Unna r Fo l x i y D m r

e H

Ln b ee r gtr x nin r ur e B s a o

r b e F r y

D C D m

I e le a r p x Ct d

C o e

l m i y S rr Village Trl H e e Dr h Puttin O nit C g Green Ln nyx Dr Gra Sain t Andrews Blvd Angle C wood Ct ap tiv Golf Stream Dr a Killeen Dr Xi ng S Legend unbe y rry a B Fairpoint D Underutilized_Land Dr ay ra r stwick W W Sanibel Dr Pre n Olde t n le Vacant Land o y d s

W R n Dr n a o n simm u y Town Boundaries r r Pe o

B s

a 1000 Foot Buffer Fresh Meadow Run W r Melbourne Grn Villages

D n u a d Rt250 R n e d L o y m Local Roads o r a C t l S w n Ln d a k e u inding A m el l Old W R b b County Roads o y a C or m V n n oo d d e l l o r L Interstate Roads O R C s n H

ir t t s

r n a

i s i State Roads

o a C l W

P t E g agles f f r ield W y i ay e o Real Zoning l p Heatherwood C i Rd L r S n

r o

M D i t d n t och Xing C CEMETERIES l n Brae e e i n a B n

i L e W

h N COMMERCIAL w d o

t r e w

R i i s F r k airvale Dr d t R i tree C v Whipple c e INDUSTRIAL

a C

u n m r r

e i m r y e e B

r h o C e T a r LIMITED COMMERCIAL s e n F

W e g e e d L n l r n L k n n i e v m t c R o e P u OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION s o E a r L d u s ay c e s w l e D k E y t c iv r i f a o e D o s s Cir h m B L n r ey Far PARKS e d tn o Whi r W L Whitney Rd W H c n Whitney R A RESIDENTIAL A/AA d W

n t r

a S Whitney Rd t D E l RESIDENTIAL B

e t S d

S D

k a

u r RESIDENTIAL C e

n t a m

r l s

P E e RESIDENTIAL SENSITIVE Driveway Ba Frank St t m S Pa o O r ce t RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION c A H Williamsbu o ve s rg Dr t n East Ave a

S n E o RESTRICTED BUSINESS r Ln n w i R ng Vie ndi a d La H HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL M igh L S if t P tb N acket Boat Dr ri VILLAGE, STATE, RAILROAD LAND dg R

e a l H L il igh ro P St n a High St Ext s d t e Ros W S y r elawn Ave t n

a C a

r p w n t m e u w S a v R i D r la r n e t West Ave e D l e s t E Point o G S a R t n s W t S t o W t r U s S

l e e t n Ch e t n v k u e k r S r a c c h A N m e a es S n a

t i v P e h

P r t d A W

r S 4

e t h tr Lo t P e g e in A r 5 k t r l Pa p D W Chu rch St ² i n a E Church St r e

o i M K F a n e c e l e

e v e l

v v d v t A J P y a A c A k o e s

A o n S P n a r l v h

s y

t s C e A s

g e W t e e u

t t l n in ig w i r o e Ol o d t r i M e e O ac u S r e r ch d P a o r M rd n B ilk St Rd b D R E

l F d

e u

d Ontario t v

n H

A S

Webster

r k h l t 250 G Lewis St S o u u mmit f Irondequoit S f o A@ t Village of u S Barratt S Erie Dr Fairport Pl C

r o O d l b D R b d R ed s M e aple s D e e O L Bi n r rch Ln S e Rochester Walworth r n t s Penfield e r i c n i C h d P S R

r a P o

e M r n d r i a d i d y t

e l r L R t M l a G n E n e o s l e t i l a Brighton t M i fi L e y d isa h nd M Dr L H o

a w n s East Rochester

k e T

W r r r l

u y Hulburt Rd F

r Par T u k Circle D r r b i Perinton Macedon

d and Dr Parkl C Pittsford

d o r R o m D t a C w W d oo t o at W W n in t b Gre ding Victoria Rise n B u x rook D o O r P m d Farmingt e Victor R Mendon bble Hill Rd g G Pe reat nor Hill Dr l d Woo Ma l d i Cir e L

l H a

k n Clarkes X r a ing Briar Wa r u y T Margo Dr rmill D C Peppe e d R

r y

e E l Route 250

d l M r

r R

e l T d

r k n t

r R T c

o o Corridor Study i h U eek l d t y w C o r n

a n n e R a P i L y e n p t W r ec V l a h t d s w t W d t g o m o o r n i T u

et o o u P f e H o

o n N w k d d Hadley Dr y l a C o

a S

O H o

C t L r e Figure 27A e

Ayrault R A d yrault Rd n H Perinton Vacant L

r e v r

D n e i D n p w d l w y y o k r y

t R c a a T 0500 1,000 2,000 o d i

g o W s w & Underutilized a s e w d e r Feet k an e o o r T l r c v Cin r l i i nam on H Cir i K w c r B h o s t D W Spr l u ing Hl ir w Ke o Huxley Way mills C S Sugar Land Project #06-4108 d R e

v k e A Hadley Dr re n c e o tl s t r e

e N

J A yrault Rd n L Ayra r ult Rd e

D n

p wi y y o y t

a d

a l e r w n W T e Legend e a r w

l s r T k v Cin s i namon C c ir o i r B ro Underutilized_Land H

w D

s c y r Spr r i ing Hl h d e t a D C d W o K u M Vacant Land W y

o R o a e e le a y r g S d w e d w a i o i s w n s c P H e ce k o G Town Boundaries e r e a l er l a s n D M v K t r b L r y a k r on H i 1000 Foot Buffer a s i m C H n l g e r A W s g T W l g l in e i

y t L d Villages a g i

K e m o r l Ga r n y i

t x a b S X g N u n r Rt250 u e u H S t

D n n 31 e L Local Roads

C A@ r y e a P Parking Lot e County Roads w i rl d t an T l t Sw d e s l y v fo i d ri r R Interstate Roads a d k

K R l D P r w a l n t e l i

m Parking Lot a L s d e e i y H v r P l a State Roads i r e i R

R i R r k a w d e r t C n n D c

s i i i

u r t f

a T Real Zoning ve w

e s t t f o e

t u i n O i

D A B u V s o CEMETERIES y

m M e

a K COMMERCIAL t e

s r r

i o t s

C 31 L S o INDUSTRIAL r e g y r A@ C s n e i D

y n a k LIMITED COMMERCIAL a h r y d

r n a e W C a u P n

e t R a B r n n OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION e u g r u s W R n l o n Dr L o i wood r e b ox a s n B C i p l k h t c n PARKS e e S r C e B S r h e w D mo l l C a t l RESIDENTIAL A/AA o t l m i C c i a r L n k k n H Ha o w n s

w RESIDENTIAL B a R r d L r g t o n D c r D

h C y k RESIDENTIAL C

d a T c

n r d R o

l t n n R RESIDENTIAL SENSITIVE e

Ln o o Unn n ber r ame Tim L y d Stree d t o a

e r

g l C

l a RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION m B ir in e r h rig C s d T gsb d k C oro L oo r o e y n a n b RESTRICTED BUSINESS w W P M k n u r to i n t R u K L B t t HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL u e n l h c Fer a nly VILLAGE, STATE, RAILROAD LAND t Park a MC W Co W ord W y oo a d W s l D r r T m A C l e a d o h d g w s lo d R i i e c n

h l R k ia H D i C r ar S R l u H D

dw C nm i s

n k ir e r o Rd r Pole n o Lodge o t D o L d u w n l T

H o a a i i y r ll C c a n o R r n Garnsey Rd e i o w b d l

e x s ² W o v i o C r F

d t R D y e se r rn d i e a C r G Ln R gden ll Bri y i St H id e H d l d en l d Driveway B a l e r g a g V r s m d s e h a B R s o m i r E n r g u r l r C n D i n Ontario ng i d g U od p n n i ri o Webster G p w i a r a W h Gambin Hl e p h p C l is C h Irondequoit

S e

y n lva i Rochester Walworth n V Penfield G ln

r s y k a D W

a aux Brighton s Claret Dr i rde O l o B l C b East Rochester a ab a r Ca er l ne h d law t C a ir C e y Rd h g t W 250 Perinton Macedon a ood Pittsford C cliff A@ Dr Riesling Ct r D f f r li Farmingt c Te w Mendon Victor d f o o f R i r N o l e e c D g W u a d c b w o h b e a a o i t t C R V C e k W s l l n a Un ru L u m na o la k med t G n S s p S tre i n e r t L B e S r te i e Route 250 l a e l Rd c u 96 a e A@ N B euc hat Corridor Study el Ln W Cressier i Ct llo w b ro o k St O ate ff H ic wy La Figure 27B e 9 Sal I P 6 le 4 a Pk 9 r wy 0 k

I 4 y Perinton Vacant 9 R ewa 0 am Driv

p 0500 1,000 2,000 & Underutilized Feet Land Project #06-4108 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

B. Future Traffic Volume Forecasting Assistance The Genesee Transportation Council provided invaluable assistance with the provision of travel demand modeling expertise assistance throughout the duration of this project. GTC maintains the Rochester Metropolitan area peak hour travel demand model using the software program called TransCAD. This platform was used to evaluate the Route 250 corridor for a 2005 Base Condition and a 2025 Future Year. For 2025, the model included the regionally-projected and approved population and employment projections for the Rochester region. For the Route 250 Corridor Study, however, the model was enhanced with four special generators that were not in the Regional 2025 model, and it was felt that these trip generators were likely to result in significant traffic volumes are shifts in travel patterns that could impact traffic flow within the Route 250 Corridor Study Area. These special generators are:  Macedon Lowes (Route 31)  Macedon Wal-Mart (Route 31 )  High Point Development in Victor (Route 96)  Victor Commerce Park (Route 96)

A detailed review was also conducted of the buildout analysis within the Route 250 corridor. This potential growth was compared to the growth currently forecast within these same census tracts in the GTC MPO 2025 forecast to assess whether adjustments needed to be made to the land use inputs of the model to assess the potential effects of the buildout scenario developed for this study. After reviewing the land use, it was determined that no adjustments would be made to the model, as residential trips were well represented within the GTC forecast, and there was a concern that industrial development growth as forecast with the buildout scenario developed for this study is more aggressive than projected market conditions dictate.

In addition, an alternative model run was also conducted, based on discussions from the steering committee, to evaluate the traffic diversion benefit of an extension of Route 250 into Eastview Mall (potentially to connect to the drive separating Home Depot and Staples). One concern was that this connection would help to divert traffic volumes off Turk Hill Road,

Page III-3

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report according to some residents of the Town of Perinton experiences more congestion than Route 250, particularly at Route 31 and Route 96. The results of these travel demand runs are provided in Appendix ‘G’

C. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2025 morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes are displayed on Figures 28 and 29, respectively. These volumes were developed using existing peak hour traffic volumes, and then increasing these turning movement volumes based on the forecasted increases from the GTC travel demand model between the 2005 and 2025 model runs. It should be noted that the GTC model is a PM peak hour model; however, the results of this comparative growth (% increase) analysis was used for both the AM and PM peak hours to forecast 2025 traffic volumes.

D. Future Traffic Operations Based upon the existing traffic volumes, a Level of Service was assigned for each major intersection along the Route 250 Corridor, as shown in Table 9: Route 250 Corridor 2025 Peak Hour Level of Service Summary. This table also displays existing conditions for comparison purposes. The overall intersection operations of each intersection evaluated is depicted in Figure 30: 2025 AM Peak Hour Level of Service and Figure 31: 2025 PM Peak Hour Level of Service. Future 2025 Capacity Analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix ‘H.’

Route 96/Route 250 Intersection The Route 96 intersection currently operates at an overall Level of Service (LOS) ‘B’ or better for both the morning and evening peak hours. The intersection will continue to operate at LOS ‘B’ through the 2025 future conditions.

Garnsey Road/Route 250 Intersection The Garnsey Road intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for the evening peak hour and LOS ‘B’ for the morning peak hour. The intersection will operate at LOS ‘C’ for both

Page III-4

Lake Road Lake Ontario

Schlegel Road

Klem Road Ontario Webster (! A@104

(! Village of 404 A@ (! Webster

Rochester d oa Legend R te ta S (! Overall LOS C or Better A@250 Irondequoit (! Overall LOS D (! Plank Road Study Area

Penfield Center Road

(! Atlantic Avenue Penfield 286 Walworth A@286 A@ Brighton Whalen Road (! ² (! A@441 Ontario Webster

East Rochester Hill Rd Turk Whitney Road Irondequoit (! Penfield Walworth 31F A@ Village of (! Brighton C hu Fairport rc East Rochester h St re et A@31F Pittsford Perinton Macedon

l a n Farmingto a Ayrault Road Mendon Victor Pittsford C (! ie Vi t r E Macedon ! Perinton ¦¨§490 ( A@31 Garnsey Road

(! Hill Rd Turk Route 250 A@250 Corridor Study (! Figure 30 96 Victor A@ Farmington 2025 AM Peak Hour Mendon Level of Service 00.5 ¦¨§90 Miles

Project #06-4108 Lake Road Lake Ontario

Schlegel Road

Klem Road Ontario Webster (! A@104

(! Village of Legend 404 A@ (! Webster (! Overall LOS C or Better

Rochester d oa (! Overall LOS D R te ta S (! Overall LOS E A@250 Irondequoit (! Overall LOS F (! Plank Road Study Area

Penfield Center Road

(! Atlantic Avenue Penfield 286 Walworth A@286 A@ Brighton Whalen Road (! ² (! A@441 Ontario Webster

East Rochester Hill Rd Turk Whitney Road Irondequoit (! Penfield Walworth 31F A@ Village of (! Brighton C hu Fairport rc East Rochester h St re et A@31F Pittsford Perinton Macedon

l a n Farmingto a Ayrault Road Mendon Victor Pittsford C (! ie Vi t r E Macedon ! Perinton ¦¨§490 ( A@31 Garnsey Road

(! Hill Rd Turk Route 250 A@250 Corridor Study (! Figure 31 96 Victor A@ Farmington 2025 Peak Hour Mendon Level of Service 00.5 ¦¨§90 Miles

Project #06-4108 Table 9 2025 Peak Hour Level of Service Summary

2005 Existing Conditions 2025 Future Conditions 2025 Future Conditions With Mitigation Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Control Control Control Control Control Control Delay Level of Delay Level of Delay Level of Delay Level of Delay Level of Delay Level of (seconds) Service (seconds) Service (seconds) Service (seconds) Service (seconds) Service (seconds) Service Route 96 EB 5 A 8 A 5 A 10 A WB 10 B 11 B 12 B 13 B -No Mitigation Necessary- SB 16 B 19 B 19 B 21 C Overall 10 A 10 B 11 B 12 B Garnsey Road EB 21 C 33 C 9 A 19 B 9 A 19 B WB 22 C 13 B 9 A 8 A 9 A 8 A NB 6 A 21 C 9 A 41 D 9 A 41 D SB 12 B 16 B 45 D 34 C 13 B 34 C Overall 14 B 22 C 30 C 31 C 11 B 31 C Route 31 EB 29 C 37 D 31 C 48 D WB 34 C 38 D 36 D 39 D NB 25 C 31 C 29 C 38 D -No Mitigation Necessary- SB 34 C 31 C 45 D 36 D Overall 32 C 35 C 37 D 41 D Ayrault Road EB 28 C 32 C 29 C 33 C WB 31 C 30 C 34 C 36 D NB 22 C 23 C 24 C 27 C -No Mitigation Necessary- SB 27 C 24 C 31 C 27 C Overall 27 C 27 C 30 C 30 C Church Street EB 30 C 20 C 37 D 20 C WB 36 D 44 D 56 E 51 D NB 16 B 25 C 18 B 29 C -No Mitigation Necessary- SB 26 C 43 D 32 C 65 E Overall 28 C 36 D 37 D 45 D Whitney Road EB 27 C 85 F 27 C 144 F WB 77 E 42 D 88 F 45 D NB 36 D 40 D 43 D 47 D -No Mitigation Necessary- SB 32 C 36 D 41 D 45 D Overall 46 D 53 D 53 D 78 E Route 441 EB 38 D 54 D 37 D 107 F WB 46 D 39 D 47 D 43 D NB 40 D 45 D 42 D 47 D -No Mitigation Necessary- SB 42 D 58 E 41 D 74 E Overall 43 D 51 D 43 D 74 E Whalen Road EB 22 C 38 D 22 C 51 D WB 32 C 23 C 42 D 23 C NB 13 B 19 B 18 B 45 D -No Mitigation Necessary- SB 11 B 16 B 13 B 21 C Overall 16 B 24 C 20 C 38 D Atlantic Avenue EB 24 C 50 D 26 C 50 D 26 C 24 C WB 39 D 24 C 47 D 30 C 47 D 16 B NB 16 B 32 C 22 C 169 F 14 B 18 B SB 14 B 17 B 18 B 87 F 15 B 14 B Overall 22 C 31 C 27 C 101 F 24 C 18 B Plank Road EB 21 C 22 C 21 C 23 C WB 24 C 21 C 24 C 21 C NB 9 A 13 B 13 B 42 D -No Mitigation Necessary- SB 6 A 8 A 6 A 10 B Overall 12 B 14 B 14 B 26 C Sanford Street EB 23 C 25 C 20 B 20 B NB6A 4 A 7A 5 A -No Mitigation Necessary- SB5A 3 A 5A 4 A Overall 8 A 6 A 8 A 6 A Main Street (Route 404) EB 26 C 39 D 25 C 40 D WB 32 C 42 D 35 D 49 D NB 17 B 20 B 22 C 24 C -No Mitigation Necessary- SB 20 B 34 C 29 C 44 D Overall 22 C 33 C 27 C 39 D Orchard Street EB 26 C 17 B 21 C 17 B WB 28 C 20 B 21 C 20 B NB 3 A 9 A 4 A 12 B -No Mitigation Necessary- SB4A 6 A 6A 7 A Overall 7 A 11 B 7 A 12 B

Page III-5 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

the morning and evening peak hours through the 2025 future conditions. Potential mitigation improvements for this intersection include a 200 foot southbound exclusive right turn lane. This mitigation would improve the morning peak hour LOS to LOS ‘B’.

Route 31/Route 250 Intersection The Route 31 intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for both the evening peak hour and the morning peak hour. The intersection will operate at LOS ‘D’ or better through the 2025 future conditions.

Ayrault Road/Route 250 Intersection The Ayrault Road intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for both the evening peak hour and the morning peak hour. The intersection will continue to operate at LOS ‘C’ for both the morning and evening peak hours through the 2025 future conditions.

Church Street/Route 250 Intersection The Church Street intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for the morning peak hour and LOS ‘D’ for the evening peak hour. The intersection will operate at LOS ‘D’ for both he morning and evening peak hours through the 2025 future conditions.

Whitney Road/Route 250 Intersection The Whitney Road intersection currently operates at LOS ‘D’ for both the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour. The intersection will operate at LOS ‘D’ for the morning peak hour but fall to LOS ‘E’ for the evening peak hour through the 2025 future conditions. There is limited Right-of-Way available at this intersection to make significant capacity improvements.

Route 441/Route 250 Intersection The Route 441 intersection currently operates at LOS ‘D’ for both the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour. The intersection will operate at LOS ‘D’ for the morning peak hour but fall to LOS ‘E’ for the evening peak hour through the 2025 future conditions. There is limited Right-of-Way available at this intersection to make significant capacity improvements.

Page III-6

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Whalen Road/Route 250 Intersection The Whalen Road intersection currently operates at LOS ‘B’ for the morning peak hour and LOS ‘C’ for the evening peak hour. The intersection will fall to LOS ‘C’ for the morning peak hour and LOS ‘D’ for the evening peak hour. No mitigation is necessary for this intersection.

Atlantic Avenue/Route 250 Intersection The Atlantic Avenue intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for both the morning and the evening peak hours. The intersection will continue to operate at LOS ‘C’ for the morning peak hour, but will fall to LOS ‘F’ with a delay of 101 seconds for the future 2025 conditions. The intersection drops due to longer delay times for the northbound and southbound approaches which both will operate at LOS ‘F’ with 198 seconds and 87 seconds of delay, respectively. A potential mitigation measure includes the addition of an exclusive left turn lane in both the northbound and southbound approaches. These additional lanes would improve both the northbound and southbound approaches to LOS ‘B’, and the overall LOS for the evening peak hour to LOS ‘B’. An alternative improvement would be to construct a roundabout intersection at this intersection in place of a traffic signal.

Plank Road/Route 250 Intersection The Plank Road currently operates at LOS ‘B’ for both the morning and evening peak hours. The intersection will continue to operate at LOS ‘B’ for the morning peak hour and will operate at LOS ‘C’ for the evening peak hour in the 2025 future conditions.

Sanford Street/Route 250 Intersection The Sanford Street intersection currently operates at LOS ‘A’ for both the evening peak hour and the morning peak hour. The intersection will continue to operate at LOS ‘A’ for both the morning and evening peak hours through the 2025 future conditions.

Page III-7

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Main Street (Route 404)/Route 250 Intersection The Main Street (Route 404) intersection currently operates at LOS ‘C’ for both the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour. The intersection will continue to operate at LOS ‘C’ for the morning peak hour but fall to LOS ‘D’ for the evening peak hour through the 2025 future conditions.

Orchard Street/Route 250 Intersection The Orchard Street intersection currently operates at LOS ‘A’ for the morning peak hour and LOS ‘B’ for the evening peak hour. The intersection will continue to operate at LOS ‘A’ for the morning peak hour and LOS ‘B’ for the evening peak hour through the 2025 future conditions.

Page III-8

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Chapter IV: Project Strategies and Recommendations

Based on the problems and needs identified through both the consultant work effort and the first public meeting, a list of strategies has been developed for consideration by the project team. These strategies include both corridor-wide strategies as well as many specific to each individual municipality within the corridor.

A. Corridor-Wide

There are several recommendations that are appropriate for the entire corridor and would be most effective if implemented by all study area municipalities concurrently. These recommendations are organized into two categories:

. physical improvements, . policy changes.

These recommendations are general in nature and are based on the desires and input of the municipalities and residents involved in the planning process. The recommendations were not developed using detailed engineering techniques and would require further investigation to determine if warranted under local, regional, and state standards. Further involvement with approval agencies would be required prior to the actual implementation of most of the recommendations provided in this section, particularly those related to the highway and infrastructure improvements. The New York State Department of Transportation has ownership of the Route 250 right-of-way within the Towns of Webster, Penfield and Perinton and is the permitting agency for any improvements within this right-of-way. The Villages of Webster and Fairport own and maintain their own roads, including the road designated as part of the Route 250 corridor.

Page IV-1 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

1. Physical Improvements

 No corridor-wide deficiencies were noted; therefore, no specific recommendation have been developed.  Continuing efforts should be made to promote the use of public transportation in the Route 250 corridor, including making more connections along the corridor possible, such as Eastview Mall area to Fairport or Webster Village to Penfield Road.

2. Policy Changes

Access Management Overlay District

The purpose of the overlay district is to enable the development of lands along Route 250, in a comprehensive manner within all the municipalities, in accordance with the goals set forth by the communities during this planning process for controlling access onto the mainline. These goals include:

. Slowing traffic, . Improving corridor safety, . Providing safe and comprehensive access for pedestrian and bicyclists, . Improving driver predictability, and . Combining/aligning driveways and access drives.

An overlay district would assist in moving toward many of these goals. The overlay would span 1,000 feet on either side of Route 250 within the study area, and be adopted by all the study municipalities as an additional governing document to their existing

Page IV-2 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

zoning. While specific wording would need to be drafted by the impacted communities, topics that would be covered include:

. Intent of district . Boundaries of district . Site characteristics (orientation, lot dimensions, access, setbacks, location of parking) . Building standards (facades, height, lot coverage) . Lighting (location, glow, style) . Signage (size, location, style) . Landscaping (buffering, foundation plantings, peripheral plantings, parking areas, screening areas)

There are several regulations that could be placed into the overlay district.

i. Corner Clearance Corner clearance addresses the distance between an intersection and the nearest driveway. Corner clearance is especially a concern as driveways located near intersections are often located within the functional area of an intersection. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)i, “driveways should not be located within the functional area of an intersection or in the influence area of an adjacent driveway.”

The difference between the physical area of an intersection versus the functional area of an intersection is depicted in Figure 32.

Page IV-3 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Figure 32 – Functional Intersection Area

Source: Access Management Manual, TRB, 2003, Figure 8-12, p. 132.

Adequate corner clearance should be provided at all signalized and unsignalized intersections on Route 250 within the Study Area. For the study corridors, the following standards are recommended:  Small generator (less than 1,000 daily trips) = 200 ft  Large generator (more than 1,000 daily trips) = 400 ft

ii. Driveway Spacing The separation of conflict points simplifies the driver’s decision by giving drivers a longer time to respond to successive access related events. Since driveways generate turning movements, driveways that are inadequately spaced create several functional and safety problems, particularly on roadways meant to be predominantly a through road. Providing adequate distance between driveways is a critical measure for controlling the flow of traffic, and the safety of ingress and egress.

For Route 250, the minimum driveway spacing standards should be:

Page IV-4 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

 Small commercial generator (1,000 or less daily trips) = 150 ft  Large commercial generator (more than 1,000 daily trips) = 350 ft full access; 150 ft right-in-right-out  Single family residential lots should be restricted to shared access to achieve access management or at the discretion of the town, could be restricted to internal access to adjoining parcels. For isolated lots, a minimum driveway spacing standard of 20% of the lot width should be applied.

For these driveways, a minimum driveway throat length (distance measured from the edge of travelled way on Route 250 into the site) of 50 feet should be required for commercial properties that generate less than 100 peak hour exiting vehicle trips per hour, between 100 and 200 peak hour exiting vehicle trips per hour, a throat length of 100 feet should be provided, and in excess of 200 vehicles per hour, a throat length of 200 feet should be provided.

iii. Clearance Zone A clearance zone is often created to preserve future land for ROW expansions. The forethought to preserve this land in advance of structures or amenities that are difficult to relocate can save significant money if the land is needed for a roadway widening. A clearance zone of 50 (fifty) feet measured from the centerline of Route 250 should be required for all properties with frontage on such roads and for all properties with frontage on roads intersecting such roads for a distance of 300 feet from the intersection.

Page IV-5 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

No permanent structure or use, including parking or other appurtenances serving traffic, holding ponds, septic systems, or any other use which by their removal or relocation would render the property economically unusable or in conflict with other federal, state or local requirements or which would substantially diminish the value of the property shall be allowed within the clearance zone.

Utilities, lighting, drainage, signs, landscaping, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities may be located within the clearance zone.

iv. Sign and Landscaping Standards Sign and landscaping standards should ensure that the location of such amenities do not block the view for travelers entering or existing driveways or roadways. Further, that the view of any pedestrian facilities are not obstructed.

v. Pedestrian Accommodations As the Route 250 corridor has a mix of residential, commercial, recreation, and institutional uses, the study towns and villages should continue to expand the public sidewalk system as funding is available. Prioritization should be given to linking higher density residential areas to schools, parks and commercial areas in close proximity.

vi. Subdivision Requirements The subdivision of large lots to create several smaller ones provides an opportunity to make critical access control decisions that will have a significant impact on how well, or poorly, those parcels can be tied into the transportation

Page IV-6 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

network. The following should be considered for incorporation into each municipality’s subdivision regulations:  Access plan for full parcel must be submitted prior to subdivision approval  Internalize access to the extent possible (minimize curb cuts on public roads) and provide adequate spacing from main intersections  Allow for easements/ cross connections to abutting properties  Look for potential to cross-connect to multiple roads  Require collectors be built to higher standards

vii. Plan/ Development Requirements While there are several standards that can be created for current and future developments in the Study Area, many access management and transportation planning issues are best addressed on a case by case basis during the site plan review phase of a project. During this phase, the municipality representatives and, at appropriate times NYSDOT representatives, should have several meetings with potential developers to incorporate as many of the guidelines outlined below as possible.  The number of access points for each development that would front Route 250 should be limited to one unless the frontage is greater than 1,000 feet.  Where multiple tracts of land are developed as a single large entity, such as a shopping center, office park or similar development, they should be treated as one tract of land for determining access points.  If an access road is likely to require a traffic signal, then the roadway should ideally be constructed to, align with

Page IV-7 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

a public roadway or access road on the other side to maximize use of the light, with room for internal extension, or extension to an adjacent property, for future use.  Common driveways that provide vehicular access to more than one site are encouraged.  Construct the driveway as a road, full or partial for width or depth of property.  All outparcels should be internalized using the main access drive of the principal retail center with access to the outparcel being adequately spaced from the main intersection.  Inter-parcel connections should be provided to facilitate the movement of traffic and minimize the demand for local trips on the highway.  For the purpose of assuring safe and continuous movement of vehicles, interconnections between rear yards of adjoining parcels are preferred.  Pedestrian linkages between uses in commercial developments should be encouraged and/or required.  Parking aisles should be separated from vehicle circulation.  Parking areas should be designed so that pedestrians walk parallel to moving cars rather than perpendicular.  Parking areas should be separated from structures by a raised concrete walkway and/or landscaped strip. Situations where parking spaces directly abut the structures should be avoided.  Signs should be placed at or near the entrance to a building or site to indicate the more direct access to the building.

Page IV-8 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

B. Municipality-Specific Recommendations

1) Town of Perinton/Town of Victor

a) Physical Improvements

In order to progress an improvement, the transportation benefits will need to be re-evaluated by the NYSDOT and GTC. The following recommendations have only been developed to the conceptual feasibility level and require more engineering determination.

 Route 250/Garnsey Road Intersection – Due to a heavy southbound right-turn movement that occurs throughout the day, consideration should be given to the construction of a southbound right-turn lane. Frequent illegal use of the shoulder for right-turns was observed at this intersection during both peak and off-peak hours of the day.  Route 250/Route 96 Intersection - Consideration should be given to the extension of Route 250 into the Eastview Commons/Eastview Mall developments to connect to the road that now divides the Home Depot and Staples stores. While this will have only minor effects in reducing traffic volumes on Turk Hill Road during typical traffic volume conditions, it will likely have significant benefits during Holiday traffic and will significantly reduce traffic volumes on Route 96 between Route 250 and the Eastview Commons entrance.  Route 250 Southbound between Georgetown Lane and Perinton Hills Office Park/Shopping Center Driveway - Consideration should be given to restriping the right-most southbound travel lane as an exclusive right-turn lane at the intersections of Route 250 with the

Page IV-9 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Perinton Square shopping center driveway and with Route 31. No construction is required to make this improvement.

b) Policy Changes

1. Preservation of open space – protection of natural features

The small amount of land considered vacant or underutilized in the Town of Perinton along the Route 250 corridor is largely in the Residential Transition zoning district, with some already in open space and preservation. The continuation of well planned residential developments, particularly in the southern portion of the corridor is critical, given the topography, steep slopes, wetland areas and wooded lots. Conservation subdivision design, where clustered housing is situated to avoid environmentally sensitive areas, is particularly well suited for this portion of Perinton. This type of residential development would also benefit the corridor by having single access points for each development, rather than each home taking frontage development on Route 250 and having their own driveway.

2. Consideration for rezoning 5.2 acre parcel southeast section of Route 250 and Route 31

Just south of the intersection of Route 250 and Route 31, there is an approximately 5.2 acre parcel currently zoned Residential A that may be appropriate for high density residential or office uses. It is adjacent to commercial uses to the north and west, with high density housing to the south. Given the small frontage on Route 250, and close proximity to the signal at Route 31, internal access via existing retail parking areas and drives, and/or access to Courtney Road should be considered before primary access is granted onto Route 250.

Page IV-10 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

2) Town of Penfield

a) Physical Improvements

 Route 250/Hamlet Area (Sweet’s Corner/YMCA) – Considerable study was invested in the emerging Hamlet area identified in the Town of Penfield’s Land Use Plan, and the development of transportation solutions was initially seen as problematic with the construction of the YMCA at a mid-block location. Future re-alignment of Sweet’s Corner Road is desirable in order to develop a future four- way controlled intersection that can function as a crossroads for this Hamlet area and provide for both vehicular and pedestrian crossing activities.

Two potential concepts have been developed. The first, as shown in Figure 33: Hamlet Area with Future Signal is a traditional approach that re-aligns Sweet’s Corner Road to the south of the garden center, provides access roads for the YMCA and the garden center and other potential future development. Primary access would be controlled by a traffic signal and the intersection would be designed to ultimately provide left and right-turn lanes, if needed. Pedestrians would cross Route 250 and the re-aligned Sweet’s Corner Road using crosswalks at the approaches to the intersection controlled with pedestrian signals.

The second concept, as shown in Figure 34: Hamlet Area with Future Roundabout is quite similar, with the exception that a single-

Page IV-11

Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

lane roundabout intersection would be provided on Route 250 instead of a traffic signal, and this intersection would need to be located slightly to the south of where the signal is shown due the design requirements of the roundabout. Pedestrians would cross Route 250 and the re-aligned Sweet’s Corner Road using crosswalks at the approaches to the roundabouts at the splitter islands. At these locations, drivers are typically driving between 15 to 20 mph based on the design characteristics of the roundabout.

 Route 250/Atlantic Avenue Intersection– Due to existing peak hour intersection traffic operations and concerns raised about accident potential and sight distance, NYSDOT should consider the construction of northbound and southbound left-turn lanes on Route 250 at this intersection as a safety improvement/congestion relief measure. Currently, all four approaches have only one lane with wide shoulders. By 2025 with this improvement, the intersection would improve during the evening peak hour from Level of Service F to operate at Level of Service B. An alternative improvement that the Town could consider for this intersection would be the construction of a roundabout intersection, which would have the added traffic calming benefits of slowing traffic down. Coupled with a potential roundabout to the south near Sweet’s Corner, this could create a reduced speed zone in an area operating with a posted speed of 55 mph with public concern expressed at the first public meeting to reduce the speed limit.

b) Policy Changes

1. Adoption of Town of Penfield Land Use Analysis – Route 250 This document was completed in 2007 by a special land use committee formed by the Penfield Town Board in April of 2006. This committee was charged with the analysis of existing land use patterns along the corridor

Page IV-12 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

and making recommendations for appropriate land use considerations. The outcome is a series of specific recommendations broken down by sector, each with its own vision, goals, and possible incentives. The public was involved in creating these findings and they are consistent with access management techniques and proactive planning which both contribute to positive corridor management. The Committee broke the corridor down into six segments, each with its own individual character, issues, and opportunities to further provide detailed information for this corridor study. The complete land use report can be found in Appendix ‘B’.

2. Strict guidelines for subdividing - master plan for access, circulation, etc. Throughout the Penfield portion of the corridor, but largely north of Sweets Corners Road, there is a potential for multiple curb cuts to residences where there are large parcels available for future housing developments. There is a need for requiring a master plan for more than one subdivision and to design single lots for future connection to access road in the future. The use of clustering is particularly appropriate for this area.

3. Flexibility in reuse for Route 250/ Atlantic Avenue Intersection Due to high traffic volumes, proximity to commercial uses on northeast corner, and redevelopment potential, the west side of Route 250 near the Atlantic Avenue intersection should be considered for rezoning to allow retail uses – ensuring adequate area for feasible commercial uses with access set back enough from existing signal. Since the southeast corner abuts existing residential uses, consideration for business non-retail (offices, etc) should be considered.

4. Hamlet development near Route 250 and Sweet Corners Road intersection

Page IV-13 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Planning efforts for this area have shown an interest in creating a node of development largely focused on agribusiness with some potential for niche retail and/or hamlet style housing mixed in. With the vineyards adjacent to Dublin Road, and the farm market and nursery on Route 250 near Sweets Corners Road, there is a cluster of agricultural businesses now, with the potential for growth. If/as this area is developed into this mix of uses, primary consideration needs to be given to providing primary access onto access or secondary roads, with limited access onto Route 250. Preferably, if this are does develop, a traffic signal or roundabout could be provided at a re-aligned Sweets Corners Road (as shown previously in Figures 33 and 34), providing and opportunity for safe pedestrian crossing, and potential to cross access to properties on the west side of Route 250, including the new YMCA.

3) Town/Village of Webster

a) Physical Improvements

 At-grade rail crossing – Concern was expressed at the first public meeting about the condition of this at-grade crossing for its effects on vehicular traffic. Consideration should be given to the improvement or increased maintenance of this crossing.

b) Policy Changes

1. Flexibility for Central Business/ Neighborhood Business development/ redevelopment There are a substantial amount of parcels that front Route 250 which are currently classified as “underutilized” meaning they could be redeveloped for a more intense use than is currently on site. To maximize the redevelopment potential for these properties, which would include potential combining of parcels, creating shared access points, and

Page IV-14 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

adhering to the access overlay recommendations, these areas should be given flexibility during site planning and review, or through rezoning. Current setbacks, parking, and coverage requirements MAY be appropriate or may be considered for modification based on the proposed project.

2. Consideration for rezoning industrial lands along Route 250 north of Route 104

Just north of Route 104 is an area zoned industrial that fronts Route 250, and continues northeast into a large industrially zoned area, largely occupied by Xerox. The portion within the study area is currently classified as underutilized because it is currently being used for a less intense use. The majority of these parcels are being used for commercial purposes, rather than industrial. This portion of land abuts residential areas of the Town. For both its redevelopment potential, and to better transition to the residential areas, this area should be considered for rezoning to a neighborhood business zone.

C. Probable Cost of Proposed Physical Improvements A conceptual opinion of probable design and construction costs was prepared for the physical improvement recommendations contained in this report. These recommendations are general in nature and are based on the desires and input of the municipalities and residents involved in the planning process. The recommendations were not developed using detailed engineering techniques and would require further investigation to determine if warranted under local, regional, and state standards. Table 10 displays two different options – one with the construction of roundabouts at a relocated Sweets Corner Road and Atlantic Avenue and the second with more typical signal improvements at a relocated Sweets Corner Road and left-turn lanes at Atlantic Avenue. In total, these two options total between $2.5 to $2.7 million dollars to design and construct. Worksheets were prepared detailing the technical assumptions, unit prices, quantities and other factors, and this is presented in Appendix ‘I’.

Page IV-15 Route 250 Corridor Study October 2008 Final Report

Table 10 – Opinion of Probable Costs – With and Without Roundabouts Option – Without Option – With Proposed Improvement Roundabouts Roundabouts Rte 250 @ Rte 96 – Extension of Route 250 $711,000 $711,000 into Eastview Commons Garnsey Road – Add SB Right Turn Lane $124,000 $124,000 Route 250 @ Sweets Corner Rd – Realign and $640,000 NA install signal Route 250 @ Sweets Corner Rd – Realign and NA $650,000 install roundabout Route 250 @ Atlantic Avenue – Construct $343,000 NA NB/SB Left Turn Lanes Route 250 @ Atlantic Avenue – Construct NA $257,000 Roundabout Rt. 250 @ RR Crossing $113,000 $113,000 Subtotal $1,931,000 $1,855,000 Contingency (21%) & Fees $738,000 $709,000 TOTAL $2,669,000 $2,564,000

i American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design for Highways and Streets, 2004, p. 556-558.

Page IV-16