New York State Route 5 Buffalo Skyway Management Study

Home , New York State Route 5, Skyway

NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 5 BUFFALO SKYWAY MANAGEMENT STUDY

APPENDICES

PIN 5134.31, BIN 1001579 CITY OF BUFFALO ERIE COUNTY

In association with:

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

APPENDIX A

BUFFALO SKYWAY TRAFFIC REPORT: NETSIM / CORSIM MODEL

BUFFALO SKYWAY

T RAFFIC R EPORT: NETSIM / CORSIM M ODEL

prepared for: New York State Department of Transportation

prepared by: Stump/Hausman Partnership in association with Bergmann Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1

2.0 Data Collection Program ...... 1 2.1 Traffic Count Data ...... 2 2.2 Travel Time Data ...... 5

3.0 Base Year Travel Patterns...... 9

4.0 Base Year Traffic Analysis...... 12 4.1 Model Calibration...... 12 4.2 Model Results...... 12

5.0 2030 Existing + Committed ...... 20 5.1 Future Year Traffic Forecasts ...... 20 5.2 Future Year Traffic Analysis ...... 20

6.0 Summary ...... 28

ATTACHMENT A: Travel Pattern Matrices...... 31

ATTACHMENT B: Development of 2030 Growth Factors...... 35

ATTACHMENT C: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...... 35

ATTACHMENT D: Committed Highway Projects...... 39

Page i Stump/Hausman Partnership

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Buffalo Skyway Model Study Area...... 2

Figure 2: I‐90 Average Travel Speeds...... 6

Figure 3: I‐190 Average Travel Speeds ...... 7

Figure 4: NYS Route 5 (Skyway) Average Travel Speeds ...... 8

Figure 5: Location of Study Area Origins and Destinations...... 11

Figure 6: CORSIM / NETSIM Traffic Model Network...... 13

Figure 7: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM Base Year Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...... 14

Figure 8: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM Base Year Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...... 15

Figure 9: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM 2030 Existing + Committed Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 22

Figure 10: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM 2030 Existing + Committed Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 23

Figure 11: 2030 Existing + Committed Evening Peak Hour CORSIM / NETSIM Model of I‐190 Southbound / Skyway Merge ...... 27

Figure 12: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 29

Figure 13: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 30

Page ii Stump/Hausman Partnership LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: 2007 Traffic Count Locations ...... 3

Table 2: 2006 and Earlier Traffic Count Locations...... 4

Table 3: Ohio Street and South Park Ave Average Travel Speeds...... 9

Table 4: Travel Pattern Matrix Origins and Destinations ...... 10

Table 5: Comparison of Base Year CORSIM / NETSIM Morning and Evening Peak Hour Travel Times Skyway between Tifft St and Church St...... 16

Table 6: Level of Service Criteria for Basic Freeway Segments...... 17

Table 7: Comparison of Base Year CORSIM / NETSIM Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service (LOS)...... 18

Table 8: Comparison of Base Year CORSIM / NETSIM Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Level of Service (LOS) ...... 19

Table 9: Summary of Target Growth Factors 2030 Existing + Committed Morning and Evening Peak Hours.....21

Table 10: Comparison of 2030 Existing + Committed CORSIM / NETSIM Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 24

Table 11: Comparison of 2030 Existing + Committed CORSIM / NETSIM Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 25

Table 12: Comparison of 2030 Existing + Committed CORSIM / NETSIM Morning and Evening Peak Hour Travel Speeds Skyway between Tifft St and Church St...... 26

Table 13: Summary of Traffic Volumes and Vehicle‐hours of Travel ...... 28

Page iii Stump/Hausman Partnership

1.0 Introduction

The Buffalo Skyway CORSIM / NETSIM model was developed to analyze the peak hour traffic conditions in year 2030. The model was first calibrated to existing morning and evening peak hour conditions: traffic volumes, traffic distribution and travel speeds. Once the model has been calibrated to existing conditions, it was extrapolated to analyze future year conditions.

The Skyway model study area, shown in Figure 1, extends from Tifft Street in the south to I‐190 and Church Street in the north and includes the following interchanges / elements:

• Skyway (NYS 5) mainline between Tifft Street and I‐190 • Skyway (NYS 5) / Fuhrmann Blvd ramps • Skyway (NYS 5) / I‐190 interchange • I‐190 northbound and southbound ramp junctions to/from Church Street • I‐190 northbound and southbound ramp junction to Elm St and from Oak St (NYS 33) • I‐190 northbound and southbound mainline between ksouth of Oa / Elm St and north of Church St • Church St intersection at Bingham St • Church St intersection at Elmwood St / Lower Terrace / Skyway • Church St intersection at Delaware Ave

This report is organized into five major sections. This first section introduces the CORSIM / NETSIM model. The second section discusses the morning and evening peak hour traffic count and travel time data collection program. This program was started in 2006 and was substantially re‐done in 2007 to account for the removal of the I‐190 barrier tolls in the Buffalo area. Supplemental counts were conducted in 2008 to reflect current volumes. The third section discusses how these traffic counts were used in the development of the peak hour travel patterns. The fourth section describes the development and calibration of the base year Buffalo Skyway CORSIM / NETSIM model. As stated above, the base year model was calibrated to reflect both traffic volumes and travel times. The fifth section describes the 2030 Existing + Committed alternative analysis. Existing + Committed refers to the existing roadway network, plus all roadway improvements that have committed funding in place. The metropolitan planning organization for this region, the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC), developed the list of committed improvements using the region’s current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

The GBNRTC regional model was used to develop growth factors to apply to the base year travel patterns to create the 2030 E+C travel patterns. These travel patterns were input to the CORSIM / NETSIM model to estimate 2030 traffic volumes and travel speeds throughout the study area.

2.0 Data Collection Program

The data collection program consisted of assembling available morning and evening peak hour traffic count data in the Skyway corridor. At locations where counts were not available, new counts were conducted. In addition, morning and evening peak period travel time runs were conducted on the Skyway as well as the parallel routes: Ohio Street; South Park Avenue and I‐90 / I‐190.

Page 1 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 1: Buffalo Skyway Model Study Area

Study Area

2.1 Traffic Count Data Morning and evening peak hour traffic counts were obtained for the following twenty‐one locations. The traffic counts were conducted during February and March 2007 after the removal of the barrier tolls on I‐190. Supplemental counts were conducted in year 2008 along I‐190 to reflect current year volumes. The locations and the morning and evening peak hour counts are shown in Attachment C and are listed in Table 1. Location WV1 is located on I‐190 southbound between count locations 10 and 13. Location WV2 is located on I‐190 southbound between locations 3 and 4. Figures showing these count locations can be found in Attachment C.

Page 2 Stump/Hausman Partnership Table 1:2007/2008 Traffic Count Locations AM/PM Number Code Location Peak Hour of Comment Volume Lanes Mainline Counts 8 NYS 5 inbound between I‐190 and Church St 1,033/197 2 9 NYS 5 outbound between Church St and I‐190 265/1,457 2 1 I‐190 southbound east of Skyway Bridge 2,970/3,360 3 2 I‐190 northbound east Skyway Bridge 3,431/2,608 3 Ramp Counts 3 I‐190 southbound on‐ramp from Skyway (NYS 5) 825/333 1 inbound 4 I‐190 southbound off‐ramp to Elm Street (NYS 33) 1,704/820 1 5 I‐190 northbound on‐ramp from Oak Street (NYS 190/819 1 33) 6 Skyway inbound off‐ramp to Seneca Street 185/29 1 7 Skyway inbound off‐ramp to I‐190 northbound 1,218/713 1 13 Skyway outbound on‐ramp from I‐190 southbound 615/1,160 1 10 I‐190 southbound on‐ramp from Church St 195/865 1 11 I‐190 northbound off‐ramp to Church St 867/288 1 12 I‐190 northbound on‐ramp from Church St 183/842 1 14 NYS 5 outbound off‐ramp to Fuhrmann Blvd 50/20 1 southbound immediately south of Skyway Bridge 15 NYS 5 outbound off‐ramp to Fuhrmann Blvd 122/266 1 southbound north of Tifft St 18R NYS 5 outbound on‐ramp from Fuhrmann Blvd 92/15 1 2006 count southbound immediately south of Skyway Bridge prior to barrier toll removal 16 NYS 5 outbound on‐ramp from Fuhrmann Blvd 76/507 1 southbound north of Tifft St 17 NYS 5 inbound on‐ramp from Fuhrmann Blvd 10/40 1 northbound immediately south of Skyway Bridge 19 NYS 5 inbound on‐ramp from Fuhrmann Blvd 486/113 1 northbound north of Tifft St 18 NYS 5 inbound off‐ramp from Fuhrmann Blvd 15/92 1 northbound immediately south of Skyway Bridge 20 NYS 5 inbound off‐ramp to Fuhrmann Blvd 564/167 1 northbound immediately north of Tifft St

In addition to the traffic counts conducted in February and March 2007, traffic counts had also been conducted in 2006 at an additional six locations including the weavings areas on I‐190 southbound: between the Church Street on‐ramp and the Skyway off‐ramp; and the Skyway on‐ramp and mthe El Street off‐ramp; and the signalized intersections along Church Street at Delaware Avenue and Elmwood Avenue; and at Ohio Street and Fuhrmann Boulevard. These counts were not repeated in 2007 and are listed in Table 2. Supplemental counts were conducted in 2008 on I‐190 to reflect current volumes.

Page 3 Stump/Hausman Partnership Table 2: 2006 and Earlier Traffic Count Locations

Code Location AM/PM Peak Comment Hour Volume Weaving Section Counts WV1 Weaving section I‐190 southbound between Church St on‐ 102/476 PM peak hour only counted ramp and Skyway Outbound off‐ramp WV2 Weaving section I‐190 southbound between Skyway 68/86 AM peak hour only counted on 8/15/06 Inbound on‐ramp and Elm Street off‐ramp Intersection Counts Church St at Skyway / Delaware Ave Synchro data also provided and used Skyway Inbound Left 109/21 Skyway Inbound Through 662/153 Skyway Inbound Right 262/23 Skyway Inbound Approach 1033/197 Church St Westbound Through 235/957 Church St Westbound Right 58/66 Church St Westbound Approach 293/1023 Delaware St Southbound Left 55/60 Delaware St Southbound Right 42/171 Delaware St Southbound Approach 97/231 Church St Eastbound Left 329/124 Church St Eastbound Through 194/93 Church St Eastbound Approach 523/217 Church St at Skyway / Lower Terrace / Elmwood Ave Count conducted on 7/13/2005. Synchro data also provided and used Church St Westbound Left To Skyway Outbound 94/569 Church St Westbound Left to Lower Terr 100/29 Church St Westbound Through 164/570 Church St Westbound Approach 358/1168 Elmwood Ave S Southbound b Left 17/24 Elmwood Ave Southbound Through To Skyway 117/747 Outbound Elmwood Ave Southbound Through to Lower Terrace 150/142 Elmwood Ave Southbound Right 189/565 Elmwood Ave Southbound Approach 473/1478 Church St Eastbound Thru 475/205 Church St Eastbound Right To Skyway Outbound 54/141 Church St Eastbound Right to Lower Terrace 215/40 Church St Eastbound Approach 744/386 Church Street at Bingham St Synchro data also provided and used Bingham St Northbound Left 113/589 Bingham St Northbound Right 0/98 Bingham St Northbound Approach 113/687 Church St Westbound Left 98/17 Church St Westbound Through 255/1118 Church St Westbound Approach 353/1135 Fuhrmann Blvd at Ohio Street Count conducted on 7/20/06 Fuhrmann Blvd Northbound Left 32/23 Fuhrmann Blvd Northbound Through to Ohio St 465/105 Fuhrmann Blvd Northbound Approach 497/128 Ohio St Southbound Right 86/560 Ohio St Southbound Approach 86/560 Fuhrmann Blvd Eastbound Left 14/3 Fuhrmann Blvd Eastbound Approach 14/3

Page 4 Stump/Hausman Partnership

2.2 Travel Time Data Travel time / travel speed runs were conducted in June and November 2006, and April, May and June 2007 for vehicles traveling to the downtown Buffalo Area from south of the Buffalo River via the major travel routes: NY 5 (Buffalo Skyway); Ohio Street; South Park Avenue; and I‐90 /. I‐190 Approximately five to ten travel time / travel speed runs were done for both the morning and evening peak hours in both directions for each route listed below.

• NYS 5 between Milestrip ramps in south and Church Street in north (5/22/07) • I‐90 between Ridge Road Overpass in south and William St ramps in north (5/23/07) • I‐190 between Oak/Elm St ramps in west and William St ramps in east (5/24, 6/5/07)

• Ohio St between Tifft St in the south and Michigan St in the north (11/8/06) • South Park St between Tifft St in the south and Michigan St in the north (6/29/06)

The measured travel speeds for NY 5 (Skyway), I‐90 between Ridge Road and the William Street ramps and I‐190 are summarized in Figures 2, 3 and 4. The measured travel speeds for the two local streets are summarized in Table 3.

Page 5 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 2: I‐90 Average Travel Speeds

Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) EB/WB EB/WB EB/WB EB/WB

NOTE: EB = Eastbound NOTE: EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound

Page 6 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 3: I‐190 Average Travel Speeds

Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) SB/NB SB/NB SB/NB SB/NB SB/NB SB/NB SB/NB SB/NB SB/NB

NOTE: SB = Southbound NB = Northbound

Page 7 Stump/Hausman Partnership

Figure 4: NYS Route 5 (Skyway) Average Travel Speeds N

Between: Milestrip Madison Ave Odell St And: Lake Ave Dona St Tifft St Lake Ave Dona St Tifft St Madison Ave Odell St Church St Section Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) Travel Speeds (mph) Eastbound / Westbound EB Travel/WB Speeds EB /[mph]WB EB/WB EB/WB EB/WB EB/WB EB/WB 07:00 AM 44 / 44 41 / 38 41 / 46 47 / 45 56 / 59 52 / 54 49 / 50 07:20 AM 30 / 44 34 / 45 39 / 49 43 / 48 52 / 60 44 / 58 42 / 54 07:38 AM 29 / 43 19 / 45 44 / 36 47 / 47 57 / 60 56 / 58 39 / 53 08:05 AM 31 / 37 35 / 43 39 / 48 46 / 48 58 / 64 47 / 58 44 / 53 08:26 AM 32 / 48 46 / 43 35 / 45 46 / 46 60 / 59 59 / 59 51 / 54 08:42 AM 37 / 40 43 / 41 50 / 50 55 / 45 61 / 63 52 / 63 51 / 55 08:58 AM 48 / NA 51 / NA 48 / NA 53 / NA 61 / NA 61 / NA 57 / NA Morning Average 36 / 43 38 / 43 42 / 46 48 / 46 58 / 61 53 / 58 48 / 53

15:54 PM 32 / 34 49 / 43 39 / 41 51 / 38 63 / 52 63 / 54 54 / 48 16:12 PM 44 / 31 51 / 46 50 / 25 51 / 36 61 / 45 65 / 59 57 / 47 16:30 PM 46 / 40 54 / 45 53 / 41 58 / 40 65 / 60 64 / 56 60 / 52 17:10 PM 39 / 28 44 / 44 55 / 42 52 / 17 60 / 23 62 / 60 52 / 37 17:34 PM 33 / 32 54 / 48 30 / 20 54 / 15 69 / 16 68 / 50 57 / 30

Evening Average 39 / 33 50 / 45 45 / 34 53 / 29 64 / 39 64 / 56 56 / 43 NOTE: EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound

Page 8 Stump/Hausman Partnership

Table 3: Ohio Street and South Park Ave Average Travel Speeds Northbound / Southbound Travel Speeds [mph] Ohio Street South Park Ave StartStart Time Time AverageAverage Speeds Speed (mph) StartStart TimeTime Average Average Speeds Speed (mph) NB[mph]/SB [mph]NB/SB 07:09 AM 35 / na 07:15 AM 30 / 24 07:18 AM 33 / 35 07:32 AM 29 / 32 07:28 AM 36 / 36 07:49 AM 23 / 29 07:38 AM 33 / 32 08:07 AM 28 / 26 07:48 AM 35 / 33 08:23 AM 26 / 28 07:57 AM 34 / 35 08:06 AM 33 / 36 08:17 AM 30 / 37 08:27 AM 36 / na Morning Average 34 / 35 Morning Average 27 / 28

04:12 PM 36 / 36 16:07 PM 30 / 21 04:22 PM 30 / 34 16:26 PM 23 / 27 04:31 PM 35 / 38 16:45 PM 22 / 31 04:41 PM 36 / 32 17:02 PM 24 / 23 04:49 PM 34 / 37 17:21 PM 26 / 28 04:58 PM 35 / 38 Evening Average 34 / 36 Evening Average 25 / 26

3.0 Base Year Travel Patterns

Travel patterns were developed for the base year morning and evening peak hours. Travel pattern, or trip table, matrices were synthesized by first identifying seventeen origins and destinations within the Skyway network. The origins and destinations are listed in Table 4 below and are shown in Figure 5.

The travel pattern or origin‐destination (O‐D) traffic volume matrix was estimated for the morning and evening peak hours using the GAMS (General Algebraic Modeling Software). The GAMS software is a mathematical programming language. In order to estimate the travel pattern, each individual O‐D pair was related to a unique series of traffic movements. For example,

• Traffic traveling from the Skyway in the south area (O8) to the downtown area via the I‐190 Elm Street off‐ramp (D7) would use the following traffic movements: Skyway Inbound (8+6+7+3), Skyway Inbound to I‐190 southbound Ramp (3), I‐190 southbound weaving section between Skyway inbound on‐ramp and Elm Street off‐ramp (WV2) and Elm Street off‐ramp (4).

• Traffic traveling on I‐190 northbound through the study area (O2 to D1) would use the following traffic movements: I‐190 northbound at east end (2+5), I‐190 northbound (2) and0 I‐19 northbound at west end (2‐11+12).

Page 9 Stump/Hausman Partnership

Table 4: Travel Pattern Matrix Origins and Destinations Origin Locations Destination Locations O1 – I‐190 and points west D1 – I‐190 and points west O2 – I‐190 and points east (includes Oak Street D2 – I‐190 and points east (includes Oak Street Ramp) Ramp) O3 – not used D3 – not used O4 – NY5 and points north ( D4 – Delaware St and points north O5 – not used D5 – Seneca St ramp O6 – not used D6 – not used O7 – Oak Street On‐Ramp (merged with O2) D7 – Elm Street Off‐Ramp O8 – Skyway (NY 5) and points south D8 – Skyway (NY 5) and points south O9 – not used D9 – not used O10 – not used D10 – Lower Terrace O11 – Church St and points east D11 – Church St and points east O12 – Delaware Ave and points north D12 – not used O13 – Bingham St D13 – Bingham St O14 – Tiff St D14 – Tiff St O15 – Fuhrmann St D15 – Fuhrmann St O16 – Ohio St D16 – Ohio St O17 – Port Area D17 – Port Area

In addition, illogical u‐turn movements were forced to zero for the estimated travel pattern matrix. The objective was to estimate travel patterns such that the estimated traffic volumes for each traffic movement identified above (as well as each origin and destination) would be within +/‐ 10 percent of the estimated traffic count for all major movements (defined as greater than 25 vehicles). For other movements, the objective was to estimate traffic volumes within +/‐ 20 percent of the available traffic counts. The base year travel patterns estimated by the GAMS software are summarized in Attachment A.

Page 10 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 5: Location of Study Area Origins and Destinations

O/D1 O/D4 O/D12

O/D13 O/D11 D10

O/D7

O/D2

O/D8

Notes: 1. Additional origins and destinations located in south end include: O/D14 – Tiff Street east of Fuhrmann Street intersection; O/D 15 Fuhrmann Street south of Tiff Street intersection; O/D 16 – Ohio Street; and O/D 17 Port Area.

Page 11 Stump/Hausman Partnership 4.0 Base Year Traffic Analysis

A CORSIM / NETSIM traffic model was developed to analyze morning and evening peak hour traffic conditions in the Skyway model study area. The Skyway model includes the Skyway from Tifft Street in the south to Church Street in the north and I‐190 from north of the Church Street interchangeh to sout of the Oak Street / Elm Street interchange. The extent of the CORSIM / NETSIM network is shown in Figure 6.

4.1 Model Calibration CORSIM / NETSIM is a microscopic traffic simulation software package. It models the movements of individual vehicles through a roadway network. CORSIM refers to the freeway simulation; NETSIM to the surface street simulation. CORSIM / NETSIM can model freeway ramps and ramp junctions, acceleration and deceleration lanes, signalized and unsignalized intersections, and horizontal and vertical geometrics. To create the CORSIM / NETSIM model, there are two major inputs: first, a detailed representation of the highway and street network including number of lanes, lane utilization, link lengths, horizontal and vertical curvature, signal timings, etc.; and second, a detailed representation of the travel patterns consisting of origin‐destination information and turning volumes at each junction. CORSIM / NETSIM uses a stochastic (random) assignment process. Each model run uses a random seed to generate a different result, similar to the variation in traffic flows that occurs over the course of a week or more. The results reported here are the averages of five model runs.

The base year morning and evening travel patterns estimated by the GAMS software were exported to the CORSIM / NETSIM software for traffic assignment and analysis. The data formats required for the CORSIM / NETSIM software are different from that MSof the GA software. In translating the data files between the two programs, it was necessary to make some minor adjustments in the travel patterns. In the development of the CORSIM / NETSIM model, there were limitations found in the TSIS software with regard to coding the transitions between the Skyway freeway and the local street network as well as the complex signal operation at the terminus of the Skyway at Church Street . In order to address these limitations, the following adjustments were made. Dummy links were inserted in the model at the end of the Skyway (CORSIM) to transition to surface streets (NETSIM). The Skyway approach to the Church Street signal needed to be split into two separate links to model the shared lane operation. In addition, this signal (and the adjacent signal on Church Street) were limited to four phases and were both coded as pre‐timed rather than actuated signals. The CORSIM / NETSIM network were generally built from available aerial photography as well as as‐built plans for the Skyway. In modeling the Skyway, the geometric characteristics including horizontal and vertical curves were key inputs to the model.

The calibration of the CORSIM / NETSIM model included a comparison of the modeled traffic volumes with the traffic count data as well as a comparison of the modeled travel times with the travel time runs conducted in 2007. For the CORSIM / NETSIM model, five model runs were conducted and an average of the results was used and is presented in this report.

4.2 Model Results The base year morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes from the CORSIM / NETSIM base year traffic assignments are shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. The modeled morning and evening peak hour volumes are compared to the traffic count data in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. The model very accurately reflects the Skyway and I‐190 mainline and major ramps which are all within ten percent or less of the GBNRTC traffic counts. Some greater differences exist on the two sets of minor slip ramps between the Skyway and Fuhrmann Boulevard. These differences were attributed to vehicles selecting a different ramp in the model than on the actual roadway network. These minor volume differences are typical of simulation models and had no impact on the CORSIM / NETSIM model results.

Page 12 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 6: CORSIM / NETSIM Traffic Model Network

Page 13 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 7: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM Base Year Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Page 14 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 8: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM Base Year Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Page 15 Stump/Hausman Partnership Table 5: Comparison of Base Year CORSIM / NETSIM Morning and Evening Peak Hour Travel Times Skyway between Tifft St and Church St

Base Year Model AM Peak Hour Run No. Eastbound (to Church St) 1 2 3 4 5 Average Travel Times (min) 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 Westbound (to Tifft St) Travel Times (min) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

Comparison with Peak Period Travel Time Runs (min.) Average Maximum Time Minimum Time Model Actual Diff Model Actual Diff Model Actual Diff Eastbound (to Church St) 3.78 3.85 ‐1.7% 3.83 4.58 ‐17.7% 3.65 3.30 9.9% Westbound (to Tifft St) 3.53 3.52 0.5% 3.55 3.77 ‐6.0% 3.50 3.27 6.9%

Base Year Model PM Peak Hour Run No. Eastbound (to Church St) 1 2 3 4 5 Average Travel Times (min) 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Westbound (to Tifft St) Travel Times (min) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

Comparison with Peak Period Travel Time Runs (min.) Average Maximum Time Minimum Time Model Actual Diff Model Actual Diff Model Actual Diff Eastbound (to Church St) 3.45 na 3.47 na 3.43 na Westbound (to Tifft St) 3.72 3.68 0.9% 3.73 4.10 ‐9.5% 3.68 3.38 8.4%

The inbound travel time runs conducted on the Skyway in the evening peak hour showed travel speeds in excess of 65 mph. This speed is greatly in excess of the posted speed limit and was therefore not considered in the model calibration.

A level of service (LOS) analysis was done using the CORSIM / NETSIM model for the base year morning and evening peak hours for the mainline and weaving sections on both NYS 5 and I‐190. In accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, the LOS of basic freeway segments is based on the density of traffic flow. The service flow rate, measured in passenger‐cars per hour per lane (pc/hr/lane), was calculated for each link and the corresponding LOS was calculated using the criteria listed in Table 6.

Page 16 Stump/Hausman Partnership Table 6: Level of Service Criteria for Basic Freeway Segments Max Service Flow Rate Level of Service (pc/hr/lane) (LOS) 0 to 710 A 710 to 1170 B 1170 to 1680 C 1680 to 2090 D 2090 to 2350 E >2350 F Note: From Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Exhibit 23‐2, assuming free‐flow speed = 65 mph

The results of the LOS analysis indicate satisfactory operations on both roadways and are also shown in Tables 7 and 8 for the morning and evening peak hours, respectively.

Page 17 Stump/Hausman Partnership

Table 7: Comparison of Base Year CORSIM / NETSIM Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service (LOS) 2008 Count Peak Number From 2008 2008 vs. Hr of Flow Average Location Node To Node Count Model Model Factor Lanes Rate Speed LOS 1 I-190 Southbound 520 525 2970 2932 -1.3% 90.0% 3 1026 56 B 2 I-190 Northbound 702 703 3431 3418 -0.4% 90.0% 3 1196 57 C 3 Skyway inbound to I-190 Southbound 365 465 825 840 1.8% 4 I-190 Southbound to Oak/Elm 535 635 1704 1685 -1.1% 5 Oak/Elm to I-190 Northbound 801 701 190 186 -2.1% 6 Skyway inbound to Seneca 930 931 185 171 -7.6% 7 Skyway inbound to I-190 Northbound 805 705 1218 1224 0.5% 8 Skyway inbound south of Church St 375 475 1033 1026 -0.7% 90.0% 2 1163 35 B 9 Skyway outbound south of Church St 205 105 265 258 -2.6% 90.0% 2 293 37 A 10 Church St to I-190 Southbound 610 510 195 178 -8.7% 11 I-190 Northbound to Church St 910 911 867 836 -3.6% 12 Church St to I-190 Northbound 907 920 183 187 2.2% 13 I-190 Southbound to Skyway outbound 515 615 615 630 2.4% 14 Skyway outbound off-ramp to Coast Guard 145 245 50 49 -2.0% 15 Skyway outbound off-ramp to Tifft St 170 270 122 110 -9.8% 16 Skyway outbound on-ramp from Ohio St 275 175 76 89 17.1% 17 Skyway inbound on-ramp from Ohio St 435 335 10 31 210.0% 18 Skyway inbound off-ramp to Coast Guard 330 430 15 39 160.0% 18R Skyway outbound on-ramp from Coast Guard 250 150 92 88 -4.3% 19 Skyway inbound on-ramp from Tifft St 415 315 486 498 2.5% 20 Skyway inbound off-ramp to Ohio St 310 410 564 566 0.4% WV1 I-190 Southbound between Church St on-ramp and Skyway outbound off-ramp 90.0% 5 757 59 B WV2 I-190 Southbound between Skyway inbound on-ramp and Elm Street off-ramp 90.0% 4 1009 56 B

Page 18 Stump/Hausman Partnership Table 8: Comparison of Base Year CORSIM / NETSIM Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Level of Service (LOS) 2008 Peak Number From 2008 2008 Count vs. Hr of Flow Average Location Node To Node Count Model Model Factor Lanes Rate Speed LOS 1 I-190 Southbound 520 525 3360 3385 0.7% 90.0% 3 1184 56 C 2 I-190 Northbound 702 703 2608 2602 -0.2% 90.0% 3 910 57 B 3 Skyway inbound to I-190 Southbound 365 465 333 354 6.3% 90.0% 3 134 58 A 4 I-190 Southbound to Oak/Elm 535 635 820 852 3.9% 90.0% 5 Oak/Elm to I-190 Northbound 801 701 819 815 -0.5% 90.0% 6 Skyway inbound to Seneca 930 931 29 31 6.9% 90.0% 7 Skyway inbound to I-190 Northbound 805 705 713 729 2.2% 90.0% 8 Skyway inbound south of Church St 375 475 197 194 -1.5% 90.0% 2 110 59 A 9 Skyway outbound south of Church St 205 105 1457 1460 0.2% 90.0%2 828 36 B 10 Church St to I-190 Southbound 610 510 865 865 0.0% 90.0% 11 I-190 Northbound to Church St 910 911 288 285 -1.0% 90.0% 12 Church St to I-190 Northbound 907 920 842 837 -0.6% 90.0% 13 I-190 Southbound to Skyway outbound 515 615 1160 1145 -1.3% 90.0% 14 Skyway outbound off-ramp to Coast Guard 145 245 20 14 -30.0% 90.0% 15 Skyway outbound off-ramp to Tifft St 170 270 266 112 -57.9% 90.0% 16 Skyway outbound on-ramp from Ohio St 275 175 507 490 -3.4% 90.0% 17 Skyway inbound on-ramp from Ohio St 435 335 40 25 -37.5% 90.0% 18 Skyway inbound off-ramp to Coast Guard 330 430 92 218 137.0% 90.0% 18R Skyway outbound on-ramp from Coast Guard 250 150 15 13 -13.3% 90.0% 19 Skyway inbound on-ramp from Tifft St 415 315 113 116 2.7% 90.0% 20 Skyway inbound off-ramp to Ohio St 310 410 167 28 -83.2% 90.0% WV1 I-190 Southbound between Church St on-ramp and Skyway outbound off-ramp 90% 5 967 63 B WV2 I-190 Southbound between Skyway inbound on-ramp and Elm Street off-ramp 90% 4 987 57 B

Page 19 Stump/Hausman Partnership

5.0 2030 Existing + Committed

5.1 Future Year Traffic Forecasts The regional traffic model forecasts developed by GBNRTC for 2008 and 2030 were the basis for the development of the future year Existing+Committed traffic volumes. A list of committed highway project that will affect lane capacity is included in Attachment D. For each critical location in the Skyway model area, the GBNRTC morning and evening peak hour model was reviewed. A target growth factor was developed based on the average of the arithmetic and multiplicative growth between the base year and future year regional model forecasts. In reviewing the GBNRTC forecasts, it was found that some critical locations had negative growth, i.e. the model forecasts for 2030 were lower than the base year. For these locations, a minimum target growth rate of 10%‐20% was assumed. Several local streets including Bingham Street and portions of Fuhrmann Boulevard are not part of the regional model. For these locations, a target growth rate of% 20 was assumed. In developing the target growth factors, it was critical to ensure that the target origin and destination totals were equal, otherwise it would be impossible to obtain a valid future year travel pattern matrix. The target growth factors are summarized in Table 9. The GBNRTC forecast data is contained in Attachment B.

The target growth rates were applied to the morning and evening base year travel pattern matrices estimated through the GAMS software earlier. A FRATAR process was applied to develop the 2030 matrices. FRATAR is a mathematical process used in travel demand forecasting where the origin and destination target growth factors are alternately applied until the new seed matrix balances to both the origin and destination targets. The future year seed matrices are contained in Attachment A.

5.2 Future Year Traffic Analysis The 2030 future year morning and evening seed travel patterns estimated through the FRATAR process were exported to the CORSIM / NETSIM software for traffic assignment and analysis. Minor adjustments to the travel patterns, similar to the base year, were repeated for the future year analysis. Like the base year CORSIM / NETSIM model, five model runs were conducted and an average of the results was used. No major network changes were made to the model for the 2030 analysis. The Church Street traffic signal timings were adjusted in order to continue to provide satisfactory operation for the increase in traffic volumes.

The 2030 E+C morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes from the CORSIM / NETSIM base year traffic assignments are shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively, along with the base year traffic counts. The modeled morning and evening peak hour volumes are also compared to the traffic counts in Tables, 10 and 11 respectively. The 2030 Existing + Committed, as well as the base year, peak directional travel times along the Skyway are shown in Table 12. Although there were significant decreases in the peak directional travel speeds for the evening peak hours, the 2030 Existing + Committed network continues to generally operate at satisfactory or better conditions throughout the network. In the evening peak hour, vehicles merging from I‐190 southbound onto the Skyway do experience frequent congestion and queuing as shown in the model screenshot in Figure 11.

Page 20 Stump/Hausman Partnership Table 9: Summary of Target Growth Factors 2030 Existing + Committed Morning and Evening Peak Hours FRATAR FACTORS 2030 2030 Comment Location E+C E+C AM PM I-190 and North 1.17 1.34 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor I-190 and South 1.31 1.50 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor

NYS 5 and North 1.17 1.30 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor From Oak St Ramp 1.20 1.20 Negative growth – use 1.20 Skyway and South 1.10 1.10 Negative growth – use 1.10 Church St and East 1.20 1.27 Negative growth – use 1.20 Delaware Ave and North 1.92 1.10 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor Bingham St 1.20 1.20 Zone not in regional model Tifft St 1.87 1.49 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor Fuhrmann St 1.20 1.20 Zone not in regional model Ohio St 2.14 1.20 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor Port Area 1.20 1.20 Zone not in regional model Coast Guard 1.20 1.20 Zone not in regional model

I-190 and North 1.24 1.26 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor I-190 and South 1.30 1.34 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor

Delaware St Northbound 1.41 1.26 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor Seneca Ramp 1.20 1.42 Negative growth – use 1.20

To Elm St Ramp 1.20 1.20 Negative growth – use 1.20 Skyway and South 1.20 1.31 Negative growth – use 1.20 Lower Terrace 1.20 1.20 Negative growth – use 1.20 Church St and East 1.22 1.20 Negative growth – use 1.20 Bingham St 1.20 1.20 Zone not in regional model Tifft St 1.18 2.91 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor Fuhrmann St 1.20 1.20 Zone not in regional model Ohio St 2.02 2.01 Use GBNRTC Growth Factor Port Area 1.20 1.20 Zone not in regional model Coast Guard 1.20 1.20 Zone not in regional model Note: Growth factors indicate total growth between base year and year 2030.

Page 21 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 9: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM 2030 Existing + Committed Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Page 22 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 10: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM 2030 Existing + Committed Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Page 23 Stump/Hausman Partnership

Table 10: Comparison of 2030 Existing + Committed CORSIM / NETSIM Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2030 Peak Number From 2008 2030 Model vs. Hr of Flow Average Location Node To Node Count Model Count Factor Lanes Rate Speed 1 I-190 Southbound 520 525 2970 3567 20.1% 90.0% 3 1351 52 2 I-190 Northbound 702 703 3431 4405 28.4% 90.0% 3 1669 55 3 Skyway inbound to I-190 Southbound 365 465 825 849 2.9% 4 I-190 Southbound to Oak/Elm 535 635 1704 1694 -0.6% 5 Oak/Elm to I-190 Northbound 801 701 190 189 -0.5% 6 Skyway inbound to Seneca 930 931 185 180 -2.7% 7 Skyway inbound to I-190 Northbound 805 705 1218 1238 1.6% 8 Skyway inbound south of Church St 375 475 1033 1165 12.8% 90.0% 2 1321 36 9 Skyway outbound south of Church St 205 105 265 500 88.7% 90.0% 2 567 36 10 Church St to I-190 Southbound 610 510 195 221 13.3% 11 I-190 Northbound to Church St 910 911 867 861 -0.7% 12 Church St to I-190 Northbound 907 920 183 217 18.6% 13 I-190 Southbound to Skyway outbound 515 615 615 617 0.3% 14 Skyway outbound off-ramp to Coast Guard 145 245 50 94 88.0% 15 Skyway outbound off-ramp to Tifft St 170 270 122 224 83.6% 16 Skyway outbound on-ramp from Ohio St 275 175 76 64 -15.8% 17 Skyway inbound on-ramp from Ohio St 435 335 10 44 340.0% 18 Skyway inbound off-ramp to Coast Guard 330 430 15 36 140.0% 18R Skyway outbound on-ramp from Coast Guard 250 150 92 81 -12.0% 19 Skyway inbound on-ramp from Tifft St 415 315 486 628 29.2% 20 Skyway inbound off-ramp to Ohio St 310 410 564 564 0.0% WV1 I-190 Southbound between Church St on-ramp and Skyway outbound off-ramp 90.0% 5 890 49 WV2 I-190 Southbound between Skyway inbound on-ramp and Elm Street off-ramp 90.0% 4 1177 45

Page 24 Stump/Hausman Partnership Table 11: Comparison of 2030 Existing + Committed CORSIM / NETSIM Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

2030 Peak Number From 2008 2030 Model vs. Hr of Flow Average Location Node To Node Count Model Count Factor Lanes Rate Speed 1 I-190 Southbound 520 525 3360 4277 27.3% 90.0% 3 1620 52 2 I-190 Northbound 702 703 2608 3555 36.3% 90.0% 3 1347 56 3 Skyway inbound to I-190 Southbound 365 465 333 364 9.3% 4 I-190 Southbound to Oak/Elm 535 635 820 887 8.2% 5 Oak/Elm to I-190 Northbound 801 701 819 897 9.5% 6 Skyway inbound to Seneca 930 931 29 35 20.7% 7 Skyway inbound to I-190 Northbound 805 705 713 736 3.2% 8 Skyway inbound south of Church St 375 475 197 214 8.6% 90.0% 2 121 36 9 Skyway outbound south of Church St 205 105 1457 2026 39.1% 90.0% 2 1149 36 10 Church St to I-190 Southbound 610 510 865 1026 18.6% 11 I-190 Northbound to Church St 910 911 288 404 40.3% 12 Church St to I-190 Northbound 907 920 842 888 5.5% 13 I-190 Southbound to Skyway outbound 515 615 1160 1615 39.2% 14 Skyway outbound off-ramp to Coast Guard 145 245 20 20 0.0% 15 Skyway outbound off-ramp to Tifft St 170 270 266 545 104.9% 16 Skyway outbound on-ramp from Ohio St 275 175 507 528 4.1% 17 Skyway inbound on-ramp from Ohio St 435 335 40 34 -15.0% 18 Skyway inbound off-ramp to Coast Guard 330 430 92 88 -4.3% 18R Skyway outbound on-ramp from Coast Guard 250 150 15 10 -33.3% 19 Skyway inbound on-ramp from Tifft St 415 315 113 82 -27.4% 20 Skyway inbound off-ramp to Ohio St 310 410 167 182 9.0% WV1 I-190 Southbound between Church St on-ramp and Skyway outbound off-ramp 90.0% 5 1266 55 WV2 I-190 Southbound between Skyway inbound on-ramp and Elm Street off-ramp 90.0% 4 1228 48

Page 25 Stump/Hausman Partnership

Table 12: Comparison of 2030 Existing + Committed CORSIM / NETSIM Morning and Evening Peak Hour Travel Speeds Skyway between Tifft St and Church St

2030 Existing + Committed AM Peak Period Run No. Eastbound (to Church St) 1 2 3 4 5 Average Travel Times (min) 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Westbound (to Tifft St) Travel Times (min) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

Comparison with Base Year Travel Time Runs (min.) Average Maximum Time Minimum Time Model Actual Diff Model Actual Diff Model Actual Diff Eastbound (to Church St) 3.78 3.85 ‐1.7% 3.83 4.58 ‐17.6% 3.73 3.30 12.3% Westbound (to Tifft St) 3.55 3.52 0.9% 3.55 3.77 ‐5.8% 3.53 3.27 8.0%

2030 Existing + Committed PM Peak Period Run No. Eastbound (to Church St) 1 2 3 4 5 Average Travel Times (min) 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 Westbound (to Tifft St) Travel Times (min) 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.3

Comparison with Base Year Travel Time Runs (min) Average Maximum Time Minimum Time Model Actual Diff Model Actual Diff Model Actual Diff Eastbound (to Church St) 3.45 na 3.47 na 3.43 na Westbound (to Tifft St) 4.27 3.68 14.7% 4.35 4.10 5.9% 4.12 3.38 19.6%

Page 26 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 11: 2030 Existing + Committed Evening Peak Hour CORSIM / NETSIM Model of I‐190 Southbound / Skyway Merge

Note congestion at merge between Skyway and I‐190 southbound during PM Peak Hour

Page 27 Stump/Hausman Partnership 6.0 Summary

Morning and evening model peak hour traffic volumes for the base year (2008) and 2030 Existing + Committed cases are summarized in Figures 12 and 13.

The Skyway CORSIM / NETSIM model and the GBNRTC regional model were both used to determine future‐ year travel times on the Skyway and its parallel routes: Ohio Street, South Park Avenue, and I‐90 / I‐190. This information was utilized to determine vehicle hours of travel and overall cost of operating vehicle annually on these roadways. Annual vehicle costs of travel are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13: Summary of Traffic Volumes and Vehicle‐hours of Travel

Base Year 2030 Existing+Committed Inbound Inbound Inbound Outbound + Inbound Outbound + Outbound Outbound Traffic Volume Morning 9,346 3,947 13,293 11,386 5,031 16,417 Evening 6,243 8,512 14,755 8,798 11,845 20,643 Other Times 62,356 49,836 112,192 80,736 67,504 148,240 of Day Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) [veh-hrs] Morning 1,301 554 1,855 2,179 755 2,934 Evening 879 1,162 2,041 1,344 2,444 3,788 Other Times 7,283 5,744 13,027 10,936 8,449 19,384 of Day Daily 9,463 7,460 16,923 14,459 11,647 26,106 Vehicle Cost of Travel [$] Morning $19,749 $8,410 $28,159 $33,077 $11,461 $44,538 Evening $13,343 $17,639 $30,982 $20,402 $37,100 $57,502 Other Times $110,556 $87,194 $197,750 $166,008 $128,241 $294,249 of Day Daily $143,648 $113,243 $256,891 $219,487 $176,802 $396,289

Note: Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report used value of time = $13.75 per hour for Buffalo, NY for 2003. Applying 2% per year increase computes to $15.18 per hour for 2008.

Page 28 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 12: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Page 29 Stump/Hausman Partnership Figure 13: Comparison of CORSIM / NETSIM Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Page 30 Stump/Hausman Partnership

ATTACHMENT A: Travel Pattern Matrices (Base Year Morning Peak Hour, Base Year Evening Peak Hour, 2030 Existing + Committed Morning Peak Hour, 2030 Existing + Committed Evening Peak Hour)

Base Year Morning Peak Hour To Church Delaware I‐190 Skyway To Elm Seneca St and Ave and and and Coast Port Fuhrmann Bingham St I‐190 and St Lower From East North South South Guard Area Ohio St Blvd St Ramp North Ramp Terrace Tifft St I‐190 and South 178 345 0 11 5 0 0 17 0 0 1869 0 237 26 I‐190 and North 0 0 961 632 0 0 0 0 0 1261 0 0 0 0 Church St and East 0 64 51 67 26 0 0 0 39 0 47 0 17 0 Delaware Ave and North 61 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 14 0 0 0 NYS 5 and North 0 14 63 14 0 24 0 0 20 0 107 0 155 91 Skyway and South 285 618 380 0 0 18 508 0 27 75 1284 111 93 0 Coast Guard 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 44 Port Area 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 8 Ohio St 0 0 0 7 31 31 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuhrmann Blvd 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 15 0 0 Bingham St 0 0 45 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 Tifft St 0 13 217 0 36 3 0 11 0 217 0 83 0 0 From Oak St Ramp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 0 0 0

Page 31 Stump/Hausman Partnership

Base Year Evening Peak Hour To Church Delaware I‐190 Skyway To Seneca St and Ave and and and Coast Port Fuhrmann Bingham Elm St I‐190 and St Lower From East North South South Guard Area Ohio St Blvd St Ramp North Ramp Terrace Tifft St I‐190 and South 84 59 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 1119 0 19 0 I‐190 and North 0 0 1409 971 0 0 0 0 0 804 0 0 0 0 Church St and East 0 73 164 409 0 16 0 12 0 0 364 0 6 43 Delaware Ave and North 54 0 94 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NYS 5 and North 0 29 284 546 0 0 0 23 10 0 338 0 156 190

Skyway and South 17 104 276 0 43 58 116 0 0 77 614 3 19 0 Coast Guard 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 27 Port Area 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 14 Ohio St 0 15 0 457 32 29 0 18 4 4 0 0 0 0 Fuhrmann Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 20 12 1 12 Bingham St 18 47 136 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 0 25 0 Tifft St 0 10 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 25 6 0 0 From Oak St Ramp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 737 0 0 0

Page 32 Stump/Hausman Partnership

2030 E+C Morning Peak Hour To Church Delaware I‐190 Skyway To Elm Seneca St and Ave and and and Coast Port Fuhrmann Bingham St I‐190 and St Lower From East North South South Guard Area Ohio St Blvd St Ramp North Ramp Terrace Tifft St I‐190 and South 228 545 0 10 2 0 0 8 0 0 2489 0 287 27 I‐190 and North 0 0 1266 750 0 0 0 0 0 1392 0 0 0 0 Church St and East 0 109 54 64 13 0 0 0 50 0 67 0 22 0 Delaware Ave and North 124 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 4 0 30 0 0 0 NYS 5 and North 0 23 65 13 0 13 0 0 25 0 149 0 196 98 Skyway and South 275 734 283 0 0 7 1005 0 24 47 1286 72 85 0 Coast Guard 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 60 Port Area 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 11 Ohio St 0 0 0 26 62 66 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuhrmann Blvd 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 18 0 0 Bingham St 0 0 52 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 Tifft St 0 44 465 0 38 3 0 12 0 390 0 156 0 0 From Oak St Ramp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256 0 0 0

Page 33 Stump/Hausman Partnership

2030 E+C Evening Peak Hour To Church Delaware I‐190 Skyway To Seneca St and Ave and and and Coast Port Fuhrmann Bingham Elm St I‐190 and St Lower From East North South South Guard Area Ohio St Blvd St Ramp North Ramp Terrace Tifft St I‐190 and South 117 95 0 257 0 0 0 0 0 0 1690 0 32 0 I‐190 and North 0 0 2001 1367 0 0 0 0 0 974 0 0 0 0 Church St and East 0 89 206 509 0 20 0 15 0 0 412 0 8 146 Delaware Ave and North 53 0 110 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NYS 5 and North 0 31 318 606 0 0 0 26 12 0 341 0 174 577

Skyway and South 16 111 306 0 46 65 229 0 0 73 614 4 21 0 Coast Guard 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 45 Port Area 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 23 Ohio St 0 18 0 559 38 36 0 22 5 4 0 0 0 0 Fuhrmann Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 13 1 27 Bingham St 19 58 173 347 0 0 0 0 0 0 256 0 32 0 Tifft St 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 From Oak St Ramp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 34 Stump/Hausman Partnership

ATTACHMENT B: Development of 2030 Growth Factors (2030 E+C AADT, 2030 E+C Morning Peak Hour, 2030 E+C Evening Peak Hour)

Page 35 Stump/Hausman Partnership

Page 36 Stump/Hausman Partnership

Page 37 Stump/Hausman Partnership

ATTACHMENT C: Skyway Management Study Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Page 38 Stump/Hausman Partnership

ATTACHMENT D: Skyway Management Study Committed Highway Projects

GREATER BUFFALO‐NIAGARA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL 2008‐2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Description Rte 219 (Section V); Peters Rd to Rte 39 New Highway ‐ Rural Principal Classification. Rte 20; Rte 62 ‐ Rte 240 / 277 Widen to add center turn lane Main St, Rte 198 to Hertel Ave Reconstruction and widen 280 feet north of Humboldt to City Line. Rte 78, (Transit); I‐90 to Main Street Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Rte 240; Genesee St ‐ Cleveland Dr Widen 2 to 5‐lanes (center turn lane) Rte 62; N Tonawanda NCL ‐ Nash Rd Widen Rte 62 and CR 89. Rte 62; Nash Rd ‐ Walmore Widen to add center turn lane Rte 62; Rte 75 ‐ Legion Dr & 391; Rte 62 ‐ Hamburg EVL Intersection realignment and widen approaches. NY Rte 384; 3rd St ‐ Niagara St Conversion of Rainbow N. & S. to 2‐way traffic Rte 384 ‐ Rainbow Blvd Phase 2 Reduction 7 lanes to 3 lanes Rte 33 @ Fillmore Ave Ramp Removal I90/I290 Interchange New interchange configurations, lane widenings and ramp closures Rte 20A/78, Main St Reconstruction ‐ Reduction 4 to 3 lanes Peace Bridge Congestion Relief Accommodate future bridge/plaza changes with local hwy system N. Forest Rd, Rte 263 ‐ Dodge Rd Reconstruction of pavement and widening 2‐4 for part of project Wehrle Dr; Ellicott Creek Widen 2 to 5‐lanes (center turn lane) ITS/INC MGMT Phase 3 Installation of Freeway Management System: Surveillance Cameras, Detectors, Signs for non‐recurrent congestion Niagara Falls Signals; 5 Intersections Replace signal system and interconnect system. E Robinson (N French); Rt 62‐Rt 952T Widen to add center and intersection turn lanes Elmwood Ave; Delavan Ave ‐ Scajaquada Reconstruct and widen, provide interconnect traffic signal system Installation of Freeway Management System: Surveillance Cameras, Detectors, Signs ITS/Incident Management, Phase 4 for non‐recurrent congestion John B Daly Blvd Ext; Niagara St ‐ Pine Ave (previously New 4 lane arterial street titled: Quay St Ext) Grider St; Leroy ‐ Delavan Reconstruction of pavement,curbing, drainage, sidewalks, provide median turn lane Amherst St Signals Replace 11 traffic signals and interconnect system Elmwood Ave/Chippewa St Signals Replace 10 traffic signals and install interconnect system Bailey Ave Signals Replace 20 traffic signals and install interconnect system Niagara Street Gateway Project Boulevard Streetscape Project ‐ Reduction from 6 to 4 lanes Erie Canal Harbor Street Network New roadway network associated with the Erie Canal Harbor Project Meadow Dr Extension City of NT ‐ Extension of Meadow Dr to Rt 425 Erie Av; new 2‐lane roadway Eastern Hills Corridor ‐ Clarence Construction of new roadway east of Eastern Hills Mall, Main St‐Sheridan Dr BNMC Phase III ‐ Allen St Extension Main St to Ellicott St; new 2‐lane roadway Rte 952T (Sweethome Rd); Rensch Rd ‐ I190 Widen 2 to 5‐lanes (center turn lane) Traffic Signal Replacements Signal replacements/coordination with new timing for 3 miles Vehicles on Main St, Chippewa St ‐ Tupper St Chippewa St to Tupper St Rte 62 @ Koenig/ Ridge Lea & I290 Ramp Safety Ramp realignment and intersection widening. Rte 384; Tenth St ‐ I190 Reconstruct to 4 standard travel lanes, new curb, sidewalks and new drainage system. Maple Rd; Rte 263 ‐ Hopkins Rd Intersection Reconstruction Access Rd; Lake Ave ‐ Milestrip Rd New road Buffalo Signals New traffic and pedestrian signal system. Genesee St Signals New traffic and pedestrian signal system. Youngs @ Aero Intersection Updated signal system & widening for turn lane Wehrle @ Harris Hill Intersection Traffic signal upgrade & some widening of approaches Alert drivers approaching the Lewiston‐Queenston Bridge on I‐190 of changing Early Warning System, Travel Safety Improvements‐Phase 1 conditions at the crossing (e.g. backup queuing) and provide appropriate information Greiner Rd @ Shimerville Rd New traffic signal Colvin Blvd, Brighton Rd Signals Replace 7 traffic signals and actuated cross‐street interrupts Elmwood Ave Corridor Signals Replace 5 traffic signals and actuated cross‐street interrupts Lockport Rd Intersection Channelization <250 feet and 1 Signal Improvement Rte 5/20/438 Intersection Roundabout at intersection; restripe Rte 5 with center turn lane PROJECTS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Peace Bridge Increase from 3 to 6 lanes

Page 39 Stump/Hausman Partnership Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF DETAILED INCIDENT REPORTS BY BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

INCIDENT CALLS PER YEAR BY TYPE

INCIDENT CALL YEAR IDENTIFICATION TOTAL 2003 2004 2005 2006 CODE

ACCPDO 62 27 29 22 140 ACCINJ 9 13 9 10 41 AGENCY 3 4 3 4 14 AIP 1 0 0 0 1 ALOOSE 14 9 6 0 29 ASISST 7 6 5 0 18 ASSLT 0 0 1 0 1 AVEH

6 5 4 1 16

CHILD 0 1 0 0 1 CRMMIS 0 1 1 1 3 DRUNK 13 9 12 9 43 DUMP 0 0 0 1 1 FIRE 2 2 3 2 9 GUN 0 0 1 0 1 HRPDO 2 5 3 2 12 INDEC 0 1 0 0 1 IRR 27 31 32 34 124 JUV 4 0 3 0 7 KENPDO 6 18 22 11 57 LARC 0 0 1 0 1 MISC 72 57 60 66 255 MOTOR 209 219 217 151 796 PERSON 0 2 1 0 3 RDRAGE 1 3 1 3 8 RES 0 0 1 0 1 ROAD 2 0 0 0 2 RUUV 0 0 1 0 1 SIGNAL 0 0 1 0 1 SPEED 13 22 23 13 71 SUIC 1 0 2 1 4 SUSPER 7 5 9 7 28 SUSVEH 2 5 4 11 22 T 12 6 6 5 29 THAZ 2 3 8 3 16 THREAT 0 1 1 0 2 TOW 17 13 13 13 56 TRAFFIC 2 2 1 1 6 UNK 0 1 0 0 1 UTIL 0 0 1 3 4 WAR 1 0 1 0 2 WELF 2 2 5 3 12

TOTAL 499 473 491 377 1840

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

INCIDENT CALL CODE DESCRIPTIONS

INCIDENT CALL DESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION CODE

ACCPDO ACCIDENT / NO INJURY ACCINJ ACCIDENT / INJURY AGENCY ASSIST OTHER AGENCY AIP ASSAULT IN PROGRESS ALOOSE ANIMAL LOOSE ASSIST ASSIST CITIZEN ASSLT ASSAULT AVEH ABANDONED VEHICLE CHILD CHILD NEGLECT CRMMIS CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DRUNK DRUNK DUMP DUMPING TRASH FIRE FIRE GUN GUN HRPDO HIT / RUN PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY INDEC INDECENT EXPOSURE IRR IRRATIONAL PERSON JUV JUVENILE TROUBLE KENPDO ACCIDENT SKYWAY / KENSINGTON LARC LARCENY / THEFT MISC MISCELLANEOUS MOTOR MOTORIST STRANDED PERSON PERSON DOWN RDRAGE ROAD RAGE IN PROGRESS RES RESCUE ROAD ROAD CLOSURE RUUV RECOVERED UNAUTHORIZED USE / VEHICLE SIGNAL SIGNAL OUT SPEED SPEEDING SUIC SUICIDE ATTEMPT SUSPER SUSPICIOUS PERSON SUSVEH SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE T TRAFFIC STOP THAZ TRAFFIC HAZARD THREAT THREATS / HARASSMENT TOW TOW TRUCK TRAFFIC TRAFFIC CONTROL UNK UNKNOWN TROUBLE UTIL UTILITY COMPANY NEEDED WAR WARRANT SUSPECT WELF CHECK WELFARE

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

APPENDIX C

INCIDENT REPORTS BY NITTEC

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PIN 5134.31.XXX, D025511 Skyway (BIN 1001579) Management Study CITY OF BUFFALO, ERIE COUNTY

INCIDENT SUMMARIES (Source: NITTEC Oct 2003 - Nov 2006)

SKYWAY- FULL CLOSURE OF 1-DIR OR 2-DIR SKYWAY - SINGLE LANE CLOSURE INCIDENT SKYWAY - NO LANE CLOSURE INCIDENT DISABLED DISABLED DATE ACCIDENT DEBRIS MAINTENANCE WEATHER DATE ACCIDENT DEBRISWEATHER MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE DATE DEBRIS WEATHER MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE 11/24/2003 (2-dir) 1 10/11/2003 1 12/8/2003 1 10/15/2003 2 12/21/2003 (1-dir) 1 10/20/2003 1 1/15/2004 1 12/21/2003 (1-dir) 1 10/29/2003 1 1/30/2004 1

1/23/2004 (1-dir) 1 11/1/2003 1 2/15/2004 1 1/28/04 (2-dir) 1 11/11/2003 1 1/31/04 (2-dir) 1 11/13/2003 1 3/9/2004 1 11/23/2003 1 2/27/2004 (1-dir) 1 11/25/2003 1 4/20/2004 1 11/25/2003 1 5/4/2004 1 12/22/2003 1 5/12/2004 1 5/17/2004 1 1/15/2004 1 1/29/2004 1 1/29/2004 1

2/9/2004 1 2/19/2004 1 2/27/2004 1

3/15/2004 1

4/8/2004 1 4/15/2004 1 4/18/2004 1 4/20/2004 1 4/20/2004 1 4/21/2004 1 4/21/2004 1 4/28/2004 1 4/28/2004 1

5/4/2004 1 5/6/2004 1 5/7/2004 1

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PIN 5134.31.XXX, D025511 Skyway (BIN 1001579) Management Study CITY OF BUFFALO, ERIE COUNTY

INCIDENT SUMMARIES (Source: NITTEC Oct 2003 - Nov 2006)

SKYWAY- FULL CLOSURE OF 1-DIR OR 2-DIR SKYWAY - SINGLE LANE CLOSURE INCIDENT SKYWAY - NO LANE CLOSURE INCIDENT DISABLED DISABLED DATE ACCIDENT DEBRIS MAINTENANCE WEATHER DATE ACCIDENT DEBRISWEATHER MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE DATE DEBRIS WEATHER MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE 5/8/2004 1 5/17/2004 1 5/17/2004 1 5/24/2004 1 5/25/2004 1

6/15/04 (1-dir) 1 6/7/2004 1 7/17/2004 1 6/7/2004 1 10/7/04 (1-dir) 1 6/8/2004 1 9/20/2004 1 6/9/2004 1 6/10/2004 1 10/13/2004 1 6/11/2004 1 6/12/2004 1 6/26/2004 1 6/26/2004 1 6/28/2004 1

7/10/2004 1 7/10/2004 1 7/12/2004 1 7/12/2004 1 7/16/2004 1 7/17/2004 1 7/18/2004 1 7/19/2004 1 7/19/2004 1 7/31/2004 1

8/9/2004 1 8/11/2004 1 8/14/2004 1 8/21/2004 1 8/23/2004 1 8/23/2004 1 8/25/2004 1 8/26/2004 1

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PIN 5134.31.XXX, D025511 Skyway (BIN 1001579) Management Study CITY OF BUFFALO, ERIE COUNTY

INCIDENT SUMMARIES (Source: NITTEC Oct 2003 - Nov 2006)

10/6/2004 1 10/7/2004 1 10/8/2004 1 10/15/2004 1 10/16/2004 1 10/20/2004 1 10/31/2004 1

12/1/04 (1-dir) 1 11/4/2004 1 11/10/2004 1 12/14/04 (1-dir) 1 11/8/2004 1 11/11/2004 1 12/24/04 (2-dir) 1 11/9/2004 1 11/12/2004 1 11/10/2004 1 1/16/05 (1-dir) 1 11/10/2004 1 5/6/2005 1 11/11/2004 1 3/22/05 (1-dir) 1 11/17/2004 1 3/24/05 (1-dir) 1 11/19/2004 1 11/20/2004 1 11/23/2004 1 11/29/2004 1

12/1/2004 1 12/8/2004 1 12/9/2004 1 12/14/2004 1 12/29/2004 1

1/29/2005 1

3/10/2005 1 3/22/2005 1 3/31/2005 1

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PIN 5134.31.XXX, D025511 Skyway (BIN 1001579) Management Study CITY OF BUFFALO, ERIE COUNTY

INCIDENT SUMMARIES (Source: NITTEC Oct 2003 - Nov 2006)

SKYWAY- FULL CLOSURE OF 1-DIR OR 2-DIR SKYWAY - SINGLE LANE CLOSURE INCIDENT SKYWAY - NO LANE CLOSURE INCIDENT DISABLED DISABLED DATE ACCIDENT DEBRIS MAINTENANCE WEATHER DATE ACCIDENT DEBRISWEATHER MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE DATE DEBRIS WEATHER MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE 4/6/2005 1 4/7/2005 1 4/7/2005 1 4/8/2005 1 4/11/2005 1 4/13/2005 1 4/18/2005 1 4/19/2005 1 4/20/2005 1 4/25/2005 1

5/18/2005 1 5/31/2005 1

7/27/2005 1 7/29/2005 1

9/23/05 (1-dir) 1 8/1/2005 1 8/16/2005 1 8/4/2005 1 2/13/06 (1-dir) 1 8/16/2005 1 10/26/2005 1 8/17/2005 1 10/24/06 (1-dir) 1 8/18/2005 1 9/15/2006 1 8/31/2005 1 11/28/2006 1 10/21/2005 1 10/27/2005 1

11/18/2005 1

12/20/2005 1

1/3/2006 1 1/6/2006 1 1/13/2006 1

2/15/2006 1

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PIN 5134.31.XXX, D025511 Skyway (BIN 1001579) Management Study CITY OF BUFFALO, ERIE COUNTY

INCIDENT SUMMARIES (Source: NITTEC Oct 2003 - Nov 2006)

4/10/2006 1 4/27/2006 1 4/30/2006 1

6/7/2006 1 6/22/2006 1

8/1/2006 1

9/19/2006 1 9/20/2006 1 9/25/2006 1

10/19/2006 1

11/8/2006 1

SUBTOTAL 12 1 1 4 SUBTOTAL 15 19 0 17 50 37 SUBTOTAL 1 2 6 4 7 TOTAL BY TOTAL BY TOTAL BY TYPE 18 TYPE 138 TYPE 20 TOTAL INCIDENTS 176

% OF TOTAL 6.8% 0.6% 0.6% 2.3% % OF TOTAL 8.5% 10.8% 0.0% 9.7% 28.4% 21.0% % OF TOTAL 0.6% 1.1% 3.4% 2.3% 4.0% % BY TYPE 10.2% % BY TYPE 78.4% % BY TYPE 11.4%

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

APPENDIX D

DETAILS OF ACCIDENT HISTORY

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

DETAILS OF Location: Buffalo Skyway Bridge P.I.N.: 5134.31 ACCIDENT HISTORY Skyway Management Study D025511 (as shown on City of Buffalo, Erie County Skyway (BIN 1001579) collision diagrams) Date of Report: 3/9/2007 ROAD SURFACE WEATHER LIGHT PERIOD STUDIED CONDITIONS ROADWAY CHARACTER CONDITION 1. Clear From: 12/1/2002 1. Daylight 1. Straight and Level 1. Dry 2. Cloudy To: 12/31/2006 2. Dawn 2. Straight and Grade 2. Wet 3. Rain 49 months 3. Dusk 3. Straight at Hillcrest 3. Muddy 4. Snow 4. Dark Road 4. Curve and 4. Lighted Level Snow/Ice 5. Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain 5. Dark Road 5. Curve and Unlighted Grade 5. Slush 6. Fog/Smog/Smoke 6. Curve at Hillcrest 0. Other 0. Other

Ref. Mark Acc. Type Description

Key (mile Travel Severity Weather Weather Vehicles Vehicles Con. Fact. Surf. Cond. Direction of Direction Road Char. Char. Road No. post) Date Time Lght. Cond.

81 302.73 12/23/2003 21:45 WB 2 PDO 4 6 2 3 2 OVER Veh #1 WB on Skyway sideswiped Veh #2 while passing 91 302.83 1/24/2004 5:10 WB 1 INJ 4 3 4 4 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 WB on Skyway lost control & struck gore barrier REAR 27 302.84 2/24/2003 14:30 EB 2 PDO 1 2 2 2 - END Veh #2 EB on Skyway was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR 159 302.84 7/5/2005 11:40 EB 2 PDO 1 2 1 2 - END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, stopped in traffic, was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR 119 302.88 8/25/2004 10:45 EB 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 60 END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, stalled and was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR 202 302.92 11/6/2006 21:35 EB 2 PDO 4 5 1 2 - END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, stalled in right lane, was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR 129 302.95 11/2/2004 15:30 WB 2 PDO 1 2 2 3 9 END Veh #2 WB on Skyway was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR 134 302.96 11/29/2004 16:58 EB 3 INJ 4 6 1 1 26,26 END 3 vehicles EB on Skyway, chain reaction, rear end collisions 145 302.99 2/9/2005 13:35 EB 1 PDO 1 5 4 4 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control and struck median barrier 14 303.01 1/18/2003 3:30 EB 1 INJ 4 3 4 4 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control and struck median barrier REAR 75 303.04 10/29/2003 22:07 EB 2 PDO 4 3 2 2 4,60 END Veh #1 EB on Skyway, rear ended stalled Veh #2 REAR 166 303.07 9/23/2005 13:35 EB 3 INJ 1 2 1 1 4 END 3 vehicles EB on Skyway, chain reaction, rear end collisions REAR 4 vehicles EB on Skyway, chain reaction, rear end collisions, Veh #1 102 303.10 3/15/2004 7:25 EB 4 PDO 1 2 1 1 - END stopped 39 303.15 4/3/2003 17:00 EB 1 PDO 1 1 4 3 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control and struck median barrier 38 303.14 4/3/2003 17:00 EB 1 PDO 1 1 4 3 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control and struck median and right barriers REAR 101 303.17 3/15/2004 7:25 EB 2 PDO 1 2 1 1 - END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, stopped suddenly and was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR Veh #2 EB on Skyway, tried to avoid stalled vehicle, was rear ended by 144 303.17 2/4/2005 17:00 EB 2 PDO 3 5 0 6 69,69 END Veh #1

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

Veh #1 WB on Skyway, lost control on snow and ice and struck median 186 303.17 2/17/2005 2:20 WB 1 PDO 4 5 4 4 17,66 SKIDDED barrier Veh #1 EB on Skyway, was cut off by unknown vehicle, lost control and hit median 143 303.26 1/28/2005 10:20 EB 1 PDO 1 5 2 1 - SKIDDED barrier Veh operator reported strong winds caused her lose control and spun around on 205 303.27 12/7/2006 4:35 EB 1 PDO 4 5 1 1 40 OTHER Skyway 197 303.37 6/7/2006 7:50 EB 1 INJ 1 5 1 1 - OVER Veh #1 EB on Skyway, was cut off by unknown vehicle, hit barrier wall 8 303.38 12/23/2002 16:40 EB 1 PDO 3 1 2 4 - OTHER Light pole #25-1 blew down on top of EB Veh #1 REAR 150 303.39 3/22/2005 6:43 EB 3 PDO 2 2 4 1 66 END 3 vehicles EB on Skyway, chain reaction, rear end collisions 149 303.40 3/22/2005 6:40 EB 1 PDO 2 2 4 1 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control and struck right barrier REAR 141 303.43 1/28/2005 7:50 EB 2 PDO 1 6 4 2 - END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, slowing, was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR 106 303.45 4/20/2004 8:10 EB 4 INJ 1 2 1 2 26 END 4 vehicles EB on Skyway, chain reaction, rear end collisions, Veh #1 was slowing Veh #2 EB on Skyway, passing Veh #1, lost control and was hit by Veh 24 303.47 2/17/2003 16:20 EB 2 PDO 1 2 4 4 66 SKIDDED #1 REAR Veh #2 EB on Skyway, was stopping for traffic, was rear ended by Veh 136 303.48 12/21/2004 8:10 EB 2 PDO 1 - 2 1 66,66 END #1 Veh #1 EB on Skyway, hit bebris, causing veh to hit median barrier, spin around and hitting Veh #1, which hit 191 303.49 1/31/2006 18:35 EB 2 INJ 4 2 - 2 - OTHER right barrier REAR 137 303.54 1/12/2005 7:35 EB 2 PDO 1 5 2 3 66 END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, slowing for traffic, was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR 128 303.54 11/1/2004 7:50 EB 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 4 END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, stopped in traffic, was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR 43 303.54 4/4/2003 1:20 WB 2 PDO 4 1 4 5 4,66 END Veh #1 WB on Skyway, rear ended Veh #2 on icy pavement REAR 195 303.54 4/27/2006 15:50 WB 2 INJ 1 5 1 - - END Veh #2 SB on I-190 exit ramp to WB Skyway, slowed to merge, was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR 111 303.55 6/7/2004 7:45 EB 3 PDO 1 2 1 2 - END 3 vehicles EB on Skyway, chain reaction, rear end collisions Veh #1 WB on Skyway, lost control and hit right 34 303.55 4/1/2003 7:20 WB 1 PDO 1 6 4 4 66 SKIDDED barrier REAR 199 303.55 8/8/2006 15:25 WB 2 INJ 1 5 1 1 - END Veh #2 SB on I-190 exit ramp to WB Skyway, stopped to merge, was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR Veh #1 WB on Skyway, lost control and hit Veh #2, then struck right 190 303.56 12/15/2005 11:45 EB 2 PDO 1 5 4 5 66 END barrier 192 303.56 3/2/2006 13:55 EB 1 PDO 1 5 4 4 - SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control and hit crash barrels at exit ramp to SB I-190 15 303.56 1/18/2003 23:30 EB 1 PDO 4 1 4 4 5 SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control and struck gore barrier at I-190 SB exit ramp 31 303.56 3/27/2003 17:20 WB 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 - OVER Veh's #1 & 2 WB on Skyway, collided while merging from I-190 SB ramp Veh's #2 on ramp from SB I-190 to WB Skyway was struck by Veh #1 on right side while trying to merge into 46 303.56 5/7/2003 15:10 WB 2 PDO 1 2 1 1 13 OVER traffic REAR 96 303.57 2/24/2004 17:40 WB 2 PDO 4 1 1 1 - END Veh #2 WB on Skyway, was rear ended by Veh #1. Veh #1 lost control and hit median barrier REAR Veh #1 WB on ramp from I-190 SB, was rear ended by Veh 11 303.57 1/1/2003 3:15 WB 2 PDO 4 5 1 2 2,9 END #2 REAR Veh #1 on ramp from I-190 SB to WB Skyway, was rear ended by Veh 76 303.57 11/12/2003 12:00 WB 2 PDO 1 2 1 1 26 END #2 REAR Veh #2 EB on Skyway, was rear ended by Veh #1, (hit and 124 303.58 10/12/2004 22:35 EB 2 PDO 4 1 1 1 9 END run) Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control and hit barrier wall on I-190 SB exit 139 303.58 1/16/2005 12:35 EB 1 INJ 1 6 4 4 66 SKIDDED ramp

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

REAR 157 303.59 4/8/2005 18:00 WB 3 INJ 1 1 1 1 - END 3 vehicle chain reatcion, rear end collision on ramp from I-190 SB to WB Skyway Veh #1 on ramp from I-190 SB to WB Skyway, lost control and hit right 40 303.60 4/4/2003 1:14 WB 1 PDO 4 5 4 3 - SKIDDED barrier 41 303.61 4/4/2003 1:14 WB 1 PDO 4 5 4 3 - SKIDDED Veh #1 on ramp from SB I-190 to WB Skyway, lost control on icy pavement and hit left barrier 42 303.61 4/4/2003 1:14 WB 1 PDO 4 5 4 3 - SKIDDED Veh #1 on ramp from SB I-190 to WB Skyway, lost control on icy pavement and hit left barrier REAR Veh #1 rear ended Veh #2 at base of ramp from SB I-190 to WB 116 303.63 7/14/2004 8:54 WB 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 26,26 END Skyway. 184 303.71 11/30/2005 15:05 EB 1 PDO 1 5 4 4 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, exiting at Seneca St ramp, lost control and hit left barrer 78 303.74 11/25/2003 7:45 EB 1 INJ 1 4 4 1 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control and struck median barrier 33 303.77 4/1/2003 7:15 EB 2 INJ 1 1 4 4 - OVER Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control and struck Veh #2 while passing 120 303.83 9/19/2004 3:00 EB 2 INJ 4 2 1 1 2,4 OVER Veh #2 WB on Skyway, was struck by Veh #1 while passing REAR 196 303.84 4/30/2006 22:45 WB 2 PDO 4 2 1 1 - END Veh #2 WB on Skyway, was rear ended by Veh #1, Veh #1 hit barrier

CANNOT LOCATE ACCIDENTS TO A SPECIFIC LOCATION ON BRIDGE

Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control on snow covered road and struck 1 2/2/2002 9:55 EB 1 PDO 1 - 4 4 66 SKIDDED guiderail REAR Veh #1 WB on Skyway, hit debris, Veh #2 swerved to avoid debris and hit rear of 4 12/6/2002 20:00 WB 2 PDO 4 3 2 2 - END Veh #1 REAR 19 1/30/2003 18:25 EB 2 PDO 4 1 4 2 26 END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, stopped to avoid a pedestrian, Veh #1 rear ended Veh #2 REAR 28 3/6/2003 15:40 EB 2 INJ 1 3 1 1 - END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, stopped to avoid a pedestrian, Veh #1 rear ended Veh #2 Veh #1 WB on Skyway, hit debris, flying debris damaged Veh 30 3/17/2003 22:00 WB 2 PDO 4 6 1 1 64,60OVER #2 59 8/16/2003 15:30 WB 1 PDO 1 1 2 3 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 WB on Skyway, lost control due to wet pavement, struck median barrier REAR 60 9/1/2003 1:10 EB 2 PDO 4 5 2 3 - END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, was hit in rear corner by Veh #1 attempting to pass Veh #2 62 9/11/2003 18:00 EB 2 PDO 1 6 1 1 26,26 SIDE Veh #1 EB on Skyway, swerved to miss uninvolved disabled Veh #3, and hit side of Veh #2 REAR 64 9/15/2003 7:42 EB 2 INJ 1 3 1 1 - END Veh #2 EB on Skwyay, stopped in traffic and was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR Veh #3 EB on Skyway, stopped for accident ahead (see #64), was rear ended by Veh #2, Veh #1 rear ended 65 9/15/2003 7:42 EB 3 PDO 1 2 1 2 - END Veh #2 REAR 70 9/26/2003 8:00 EB 2 PDO 1 3 1 1 4 END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, stopped in traffic, was rear ended by Veh #1 71 9/28/2003 4:24 WB 1 INJ 4 2 1 1 26 SKIDDED Veh #1 WB on Skyway, was cut off by another vehicle, swerved , lost control, hit median barrier, skidded and hit right side barrier facing EB. REAR 89 1/23/2004 6:55 EB 13 PDO 4 1 1 1 - END 13 vehicles EB on Skyway, chain reaction, rear end collisions Veh #2 EB on Skyway, cut off by unknown vehicle, forced into median barrier, lost control and hit right side 90 1/23/2004 11:15 EB 2 PDO 1 5 1 1 27 OVER guiderail REAR 92 1/28/2004 7:50 WB 2 PDO 1 2 4 4 19 END Veh #2 WB on Skyway, was hit in rear corner by Veh #1, hit and run 93 1/28/2004 14:50 WB 1 PDO 1 3 4 4 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 WB on Skyway, lost control on icy pavement, hit median barrier Veh #1 WB on Skyway, lost control on wet pavement, hit median barrier and then right side 100 3/4/2004 6:40 WB 1 INJ 1 4 2 2 - SKIDDED barrier Veh #1 WB on Skyway, lost control, hit right side barrier, then hit rear of tractor trailer that did not stop, then hit median 105 4/13/2004 15:00 WB 1 PDO 1 4 2 3 5 SKIDDED barrier REAR Veh #2 WB on Skyway, slowed for debris in road, was rear ended by Veh #1. Veh #2 flipped over after 112 6/15/2004 21:35 WB 2 INJ 4 1 1 1 9 END being hit.

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

Veh #1 WB on Skyway, cut off by unknown vehicle, lost control, spun out and struck median barrier and right side guide 115 7/13/2004 18:50 WB 1 PDO 1 2 1 1 26 SKIDDED rail. REAR 123 10/7/2004 7:45 EB 3 INJ 1 1 1 1 - END 3 vehicles EB on Skyway, chain reaction, rear end collisions 132 11/22/2004 22:20 EB 2 PDO 4 2 1 1 60 OVER Veh #2 EB on Skyway, disabled when ran out of gas, Veh #1 hit Veh #2 when overtaking it. REAR Veh #2 WB on Skyway, stopped and was rear ended by Veh 135 12/1/2004 10:10 WB 2 INJ 1 1 2 2 4 END #1 138 1/14/2005 1:05 WB 1 PDO 4 2 4 5 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 WB on Skyway, lost control, spun around and knocked down light pole. REAR 146 2/9/2005 21:40 EB 2 PDO 4 4 4 4 - END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, stopped for accident, was rear ended by Veh #1 REAR Veh #2 EB on Skyway, stopped for stalled vehicle, was rear ended by 147 3/7/2005 15:00 EB 2 PDO 1 2 2 3 - END Veh #1 Veh #1 WB on Skyway, lost cotnrol on icy road, hit right side and median barrier, was hit by 148 3/22/2005 5:43 WB 2 INJ 2 3 4 1 66,46 SIDE Veh #2 151 3/23/2005 15:00 EB 1 INJ 1 5 5 4 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control on icy road, hit median barrier and flipped over. 152 3/23/2005 17:45 EB 1 PDO 1 3 4 4 - SKIDDED Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control on icy road, hit median barrier and guide rail Veh #1 WB on Skyway, swerved to avoid debris, lost control, hit median barrier and right 153 3/23/2005 18:20 WB 1 PDO 1 6 4 4 - SKIDDED guide rail REAR Veh's #2 & 3 EB on Skyway, stopped in traffic, were rear ended by Veh 154 3/24/2005 8:50 EB 3 PDO 1 2 2 2 66 END #1. REAR 162 8/17/2005 13:00 WB 2 PDO 1 4 1 1 - END Veh #2 WB on Skyway, stopped in traffic, was rear ended by Veh #1 163 8/31/2005 7:00 WB 1 PDO 1 6 2 3 66 SKIDDED Veh #1 WB on Skyway, lost control, and hit median and right barriers Veh #1 EB on Skyway, lost control, hit median barrier and right side 168 10/2/2005 19:15 EB 1 PDO 4 1 1 1 21 SKIDDED guide rail 172 10/20/2005 17:25 EB 2 PDO 1 3 1 2 - DEBRIS Veh #2 EB on Skyway, was struck by object that fell out of EB Veh #1 Veh #2 EB on Skyway, was struck by Veh #1 on 182 11/23/2005 23:00 EB 2 PDO 4 1 1 2 13 SIDE side REAR 185 1/12/2005 8:50 EB 2 PDO 1 5 2 3 66 END Veh #2 EB on Skyway, was rear ended by Veh #1 Veh #1 WB on Skyway, was cut off by unknown vehicle, hit median and right side 203 11/19/2006 1:32 WB 1 PDO 4 2 1 1 26 OVER barrier

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

APPENDIX E

COLLISION DIAGRAMS

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

#10-1 81

#9-1

MP 3027

#12-1

#11-1 MP 3028

#10-1

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

#13-1 MP 3029

119

91 #12-1

159 27

#11-1

#16-1

145

129 #15-1 MP 3030 134

#14-1

202

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

#17-1

14 75 #18-1 166

102

MP 3031

#18-1

#19-1

39 #20-1

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

186 #20-1 144 101

#21-1

#22-1

MP 3032

#22-1

143 205 #23-1

#24-1

MP 3033

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

#24-1 #25-1 149 197 150 8

MP 3034

#28-1

191

#27-1 136 24

#26-1 106 MP 3035 141

116 Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County 42 41 40 157

76 11

31 46 199

96 195 34 #30-1 #31-1 43 124 #29-1 190 111 192 15 137 128 MP 3036 139

TO I-190 S

#31-1

#32-1

TO I-190 N

TO SENECA

TO I-190 N

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

#32-1

#33-1

MP 3037

184

#33-1

TO SENECA

TO I-190 N Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

#33-1

#34-1 78

TO TO I-190 N SENECA

120

#36-1

#35-1 #34-1 33

MP 3038

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

196

#38-1 MP 3039

#37-1

#36-1

S ELMWOOD DELAWARE AVE AVENUE 160 DELAWARE AVENUE

CHURCH STREET 58 CHURCH STREET 77

158 LOWER 7 TERRACE 54 108 173 127 174

175 187

M 170 55 176

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

APPENDIX F

FIELD OBSERVATION REPORTS And PHOTOGRAPHS

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

#28-1 8

#27-1 7

#26-1 MP 3035

LEGEND

# PHOTO NUMBER, LOCATION, & DIRECTION

3 4

6 #30-1 #31-1

#29-1 11 9 10 MP 3036

TO I-190 S

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PHOTO #1: I-190 SB EXIT RAMP TO WB NYS ROUTE 5 – MP 303.65

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PHOTO #2: I-190 SB EXIT RAMP TO WB NYS ROUTE 5 – MP 303.6

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PHOTO #3: I-190 SB EXIT RAMP MERGE WITH WB NYS ROUTE 5 – MP 303.55

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PHOTO #4: WB NYS ROUTE 5 – MP 303.65

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PHOTO #5: WB NYS ROUTE 5 – MP 303.6

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PHOTO #6: WB NYS ROUTE 5 AT MERGE WITH SB I-190 EXIT RAMP – MP 303.55

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PHOTO #7: EB NYS ROUTE 5 – MP 303.45

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PHOTO #8: EB NYS ROUTE 5 – MP 303.5

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PHOTO #9: EB NYS ROUTE 5 – MP 303.55

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

PHOTO #10: EB NYS ROUTE 5 EXIT RAMP TO SB I-190 – MP 303.57

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County

DELAWARE PHOTO #11: EB NYS ROUTE 5 EXIT RAMP TO SB I-190 – MP 303.58 AVENUE

DELAWARE AVENUE

LOWER TERRACE

NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 5 BUFFALO SKYWAY MANAGEMENT STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PIN 5134.31, BIN 1001579 CITY OF BUFFALO ERIE COUNTY

In association with: Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-2

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Buffalo Skyway is an elevated steel bridge 100 feet over the Buffalo River and 1.1 miles in length. It is an expressway link of New York State Route 5 connecting the southern suburbs of Erie County with the Business District of the City of Buffalo, northern suburbs of Erie County and Interstate 190. It serves local, regional, intrastate, national and international travelers. The Bridge is located at the edge of Central Business District of Buffalo and directly interchanges with Interstate 190.

The Skyway has been the subject of considerable public debate in Western New York. Much of the discussion has focused on its structural integrity and safety for vehicles traversing the elevated structure. The New York State Department of Transportation commissioned this study to evaluate the functional state of the Skyway with respect to the following:

• Bridge Condition and Vulnerabilities • Existing Traffic and Travel Patterns • Future Traffic Demands • Accident and Incident Analysis • Skyway Bridge Management Options

Construction of the Skyway and it’s associated on and off ramps began in 1950 and was completed in 1956 under five different contracts and at a cost of approximately $9.6 million ($129 million in 2006 dollars). The on and off ramps to the southbound I-190 were constructed under two additional New York State Thruway Authority contracts. The Skyway is a grade separated structure that carries traffic on Route 5 over the Buffalo River and Buffalo Ship Canal and is approximately 5800 ft long and consists of 48 piers and 53 spans. In addition, there are four ramps that provide access on and off the Skyway.

The Skyway is elevated to provide 100 feet of vertical clearance above the low water elevation of the Buffalo River and Buffalo Ship Canal. The horizontal clearances for shipping under the Skyway are 215 ft for the Buffalo River and 193 ft for the Buffalo Ship Canal. A number of Great Lakes freight ships pass under the Skyway each year. According to the U.S. Coast Guard District 9 (Cleveland) office, shipping on the Buffalo River has fluctuated in the past few years, with usage currently on the rise.

Data from local shipping enthusiasts indicate that there were approximately 45 commercial transits of the 2 channels under the Skyway in 2006 (Each transit is comprised of one trip up and one trip down the channel, or a total of 90 passages under the bridge). In addition, an additional 50± transits were made by the Fire Tug Cotter and her ice breaking trips, Great Lakes towing tugs, and marine tugs moving barges. Occasional dredging operations also increase channel marine traffic. A proposed Ethanol plant located upstream of the Buffalo River from the Skyway could add another 45 transits per year. Marinas immediately north of the Skyway

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-3

moor numerous high mast sail boats that may occasionally wish to head south under the Skyway bridge. Skyway Structural Conditions

The superstructure of the bridge, excluding the deck, is constructed of steel. The piers located adjacent to and north of the I-190 underpass are also built of steel, along with the piers on Ramp C and the Thruway Loop Ramp. A paint system is used to protect the steelwork from corrosion. The original paint system and some subsequent coats used lead based paint with asbestos filler. From 1999 to 2005 a project was undertaken, and progressed under several contracts, to remove the lead-based asbestos-containing paint from the Skyway and repaint the steel. In 1994, a separate contract was let to replace the deteriorated steel catwalk system that runs under the deck. The catwalk allows for bridge maintenance and inspection access. Other deteriorated steel components, including floor beams and stringers, were also repaired or replaced at that time.

Reinforced concrete was used for the construction of the deck, abutments, a majority of the piers, and all of the pier footings. The concrete piers that support the Skyway are generally in good condition with some delamination and spalling at the tops of several piers. In 1990, the concrete substructures underwent an extensive $9.3M rehabilitation

The structural conditions of the Skyway structure indicate that today, the primary and secondary steel members are generally in good condition with some areas of minor deterioration. These areas of minor deterioration appear to be localized primarily to web stiffeners, lower web plates, connection plates and cover plates and do not affect the structural integrity of the bridge.. The concrete deck of the Skyway is generally in good condition given its age and the volume of traffic that uses the structure.

Traffic Volumes and Speeds

To obtain the travel characteristics of vehicles crossing the Skyway Bridge, several data collection efforts occurred. Peak hour manual counts were collected for 20 highway and bridge locations and a continuous machine count on the bridge was conducted. Vehicles were recorded by type during the manual peak hour commuter counts to identify heavy vehicles – those with either two or more axles or vehicles with dual tires on at least one axle. During the continuous count effort, vehicles were counted by direction of travel as they crossed the bridge. This information provided a clearer picture of the directional bias of travelers during peak commuter periods.

Results show that the Annual Average Daily Traffic volume (AADT) on the Skyway is 43,400 vehicles as measured in 2008 by NYSDOT. Approximately 4,500 vehicles use the Skyway in both the eastbound and westbound directions during the AM peak hour and 3,900 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Of those vehicles, 6.5 percent are considered heavy trucks.

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-4

Figures ES-1A and ES-1B show the peak hour volumes. Table ES-1 is a summary of traffic volumes. Figure ES-2 shows the distribution of Skyway traffic as it approaches I-190 and the downtown City of Buffalo area.

A Travel Time & Delay study was performed for five roads that included segments of:

a) NYS Route 5 – between Church Street and Tifft Street b) Ohio Street – between Michigan Street and NYS Route 5 c) South Park Avenue – between Michigan Street and Bailey Avenue d) Interstate 190 – between Elm/Oak Interchange and I-90 Interchange e) Interstate 90 – between I-190 (Exit 53) and Ridge Road Interchange (Exit 55)

The study was conducted during weekday peak period commuter times by direction of travel – inbound and outbound toward the Central Business District of the City. The travel time information collected quantified the typical peak period operating speeds of vehicles. Typically, vehicles during the morning commuter period travel on the bridge at a speed of approximately 56 mph outbound from and 48 mph inbound toward the City. During the afternoon peak commuter period, traffic typically travels 53 mph inbound toward the City and 55 mph outbound from the City.

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-5

Figure ES-1A Year 2008 Peak Hour Volumes – Upper Bridge Section

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-6

Figure ES-1B Year 2008 Peak Hour Volumes – Slip Ramps of NY Route 5

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-7

Table ES-1 Skyway Bridge Traffic & Travel Patterns - Year 2008

TRAFFIC VOLUMES DAILY 43,400 AM PEAK HOUR 4,500 PM PEAK HOUR 3,900

DIRECTIONAL FLOW OF VOLUMES AM PEAK HOUR 76 % INBOUND, 24 % OUTBOUND PM PEAK HOUR 68 % OUTBOUND, 32 % INBOUND

PERCENT OF TRAFFIC HEAVY VEHICLES DAILY 6.5 % AM PEAK HOUR 5.4 % PM PEAK HOUR 4.6 %

TYPICAL OVERALL OPERATING SPEED ON SKYWAY AM PEAK HOUR INBOUND 48 MPH OUTBOUND 56 MPH

PM PEAK HOUR INBOUND 53 MPH OUTBOUND 55 MPH

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-8

7% (1,500 AADT)

36% 2% (8,100 AADT) (400 AADT)

7% (1,500 AADT)

42% (8,800 AADT

5% (1,100 AADT) 2% (400 AADT) 49% (10,300 AADT)

0 43% (9,600 27% AADT (6,100 AADT)

4% (900 AADT) 51% (10,700 AADT)

26% (5,800 AADT)

21% WESTBOUND (4,700 AADT) SKYWAY EASTBOUND 100% SKYWAY (21,000 AADT) 100% (22,400 AADT)

SKYWAY BRIDGE

FIGURE ES-2

YEAR 2008 SKYWAY USER’S DAILY TRAVEL PATTERN

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-9

Future Traffic

Traffic forecasts were developed from information provided by the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC). This agency is responsible for forecasting regional traffic growth. GBNRTC provided year 2030 AM and PM peak hour travel forecasts for the Skyway and surrounding road system using a calibrated and approved travel forecast model

The future travel forecasts were developed for the “existing plus committed” highway system. The increase in traffic forecasted for year 2030 volumes was predicated on certain highway improvements being constructed by year 2012. Funding has been committed by area governmental agencies to insure implementation.

Specific projects within the immediate area of the Skyway Bridge considered being “committed” and affecting roadway capacity are the following projects:

• Ohio Street – between Louisiana Street and Michigan Avenue will be constructed as a 3 lane road with one travel lane in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane. • Fuhrmann Boulevard – between Michigan Avenue and Tifft Street will be reconstructed as a two-way road.

A comparison of capacity to existing and forecasted daily volumes is shown in Figures ES-3 and ES-4.

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-10

LEGEND: FIGURE ES-3

Under Capacity YEAR 2008 Near Capacity HIGHWAY CAPACITY

Over Capacity CONDITIONS WITH SKYWAY

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-11

LEGEND: FIGURE ES-4

Under Capacity YEAR 2030 Near Capacity HIGHWAY CAPACITY CONDITIONS WITH SKYWAY Over Capacity

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-12

Accident Review and Analysis

A review of accidents that occurred on the Skyway was conducted using police reports of collision investigations. Collision information documented on MV-104A forms was provided by the Buffalo Police Department. The information encompassed a period of slightly more than four years, inclusive from December 1, 2002 through December 31, 2006.

The Skyway is 1.1 miles long and accommodated typically 43,400 vehicles per day during 2007. A total of 94 accidents were reported by the Buffalo Police Department between December 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006 on the bridge. During this report period, the average accident rate for the Skyway between the west end and I-190, was 1.00 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel (acc/mvmt). This rate is approximately 32 percent less than the statewide average rate of 1.47 acc/mvmt for a fully access controlled 4 lane divided highway. An accident rate of 1.34 acc/mvmt occurred for the Skyway between I-190 and Church Street. This is approximately 9 percent less than the statewide average rate of 1.47.

Clusters of accidents occurred at two spots on the bridge. Cluster 1 is located at the juncture of the eastbound Skyway and an exit ramp to southbound I-190. A total of 13 accidents occurred at this location during the study period. This total produced an average accident rate of 0.40 acc/mev. This is approximately 2.5 times greater than the statewide average rate of 0.16.

Cluster 2 is located at the juncture of I-190 southbound exit ramp onto the westbound Skyway. This cluster experienced 24 accidents during the study period. This total produced an average accident rate of 0.75 accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/mev). This rate is approximately 6.8 times greater than the statewide average rate of 0.11.

Collectively, these two clusters of accidents represent 37 of the 94 total accidents on the bridge during the study period, or approximately 39 percent.

Skyway Incidents

Additional information about “incidents” reported and provided by the Buffalo Police Department was reviewed. Incidents are recorded as calls to the police department that may require their assistance. These include calls regarding abandon and stalled vehicles, debris on roadway, persons on bridge, assistance with work zones for construction and roadway maintenance, assistance with utility companies, drunk drivers, vehicles speeding, issues with traffic control, and accidents. Incident reports were provided for a four year period inclusive of January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2006. Table ES-2 shows a summary of the reports. Figure ES-5 shows a distribution by incident type.

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-13

Table ES-2 Skyway Incidents Reported By Buffalo Police Department

INCIDENTS YEAR AVERAGE AVERAGE TOTAL PERCENT NUMBER Description Type 2003 2004 2005 2006 PER YEAR PER YEAR Accident – Property 1 70 50 54 35 209 11.4 52.2 Damage Only Accident – Injury 2 9 13 9 10 41 2.2 10.2 Assist Agencies / Utilities 3 3 4 4 7 18 1.0 4.5 Assistance w/ assault / mischievous behavior / 4 2 1 6 1 10 0.5 2.5 rescue / warrant/ etc. Assist a person in need of 5 13 11 14 3 41 2.2 10.2 help Drunk Driver 6 13 9 12 9 43 2.3 10.8 Irrational or questionable 7 35 39 44 42 160 8.7 40.0 person behavior Assistance w/ vehicle 8 25 20 20 16 81 4.4 20.2 Assist w/ questionable 9 28 36 35 33 132 7.2 33.0 driver behavior Assist w/ traffic or road 10 6 5 10 4 25 1.4 6.3 operations Animal Loose 11 14 9 6 0 29 1.6 7.3 Miscellaneous 12 72 57 60 66 255 13.8 63.8 Motorist Stranded 13 209 219 217 151 796 43.3 199.0

Total 499 473 491 377 1840 100.0 460

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-14

Figure ES-5 Annual Distribution Of Skyway Incidents By Type Skyway Incident Reports - Annual

50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 2003 30.0% 2004 25.0% 2005

Percent 20.0% 2006 15.0% Average 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 12345678910111213 Incident Types

Notes: Incident Type 1: Accident – Property Damage 2: Accident – Injury 3: Assist agencies/utilities 4: Assistance w/ assault/ mischievous/ rescue/ warrant/ etc. 5: Assist a person in need of help 6: Drunk driver 7: Irrational or questionable person behavior 8: Assistance w/ vehicle 9: Assist w/ questionable driver behavior 10: Assist w/ traffic or road operations 11: Animal Loose 12: Miscellaneous 13: Motorist Stranded

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-15

Additional information about “incidents” is retained by the Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition (NITTEC), an organization of fourteen agencies in Western New York and Southern Ontario. They record incidents reported for lane closures on the bridge related to: • Accidents. • Construction and Maintenance. • Disabled Vehicles and Debris, and • Weather.

NITTEC provided “incident” reports for a slightly more than three year period of October 1, 2003 through November 30, 2006.

NITTEC either receives calls directly or monitors calls to the Buffalo Police Department and records incidents for the Skyway that impact its lane capacity. Incidents for Construction and Maintenance, Disabled Vehicles and Debris, and Weather are recorded as they pertain to lane closures.

A summary of incidents reported by NITTEC over the three period of October 2003 through November 2006 are provided in Table ES-3. The information identifies if lane closures occurred and the cause if lanes were closed.

Table ES-3 Skyway Incidents Reported By NITTEC

FULL FULL SINGLE PERCENT CLOSURE OF CLOSURE NO LANE INCIDENTS LANE TOTAL DISTRIBUTION BOTH OF ONE CLOSURE CLOSURE OF TOTAL DIRECTIONS DIRECTION ACCIDENT 0 12 15 0 27 15.4 DEBRIS 0 1 19 1 21 11.9 WEATHER 4 0 0 2 6 3.4 MAINTENANCE 0 1 17 6 24 13.6 CONSTRUCTION 0 0 50 4 54 30.7 DISABLED 0 0 37 7 44 25.0 VEHICLE

TOTAL 4 14 138 20 176 100 PERCENT OF 2.3 7.9 78.4 11.4 100 TOTAL

Weather related closure of both directions of the Skyway occurred four (4) times over the three year reporting period. Accidents prompted closure of one direction of the bridge twelve (12) times or approximately four (4) times per year on average

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-16

Bridge Management Options

The following two (2) Skyway management options were considered as part of this study and preliminarily screened for further consideration:

• Bridge Preservation (maintain current condition/functionality) • Bridge Rehabilitation

The Bridge Preservation option would protect the bridge from unacceptable deterioration and extend its service life for another 20 years. The bridge is currently in good overall condition, and this option would be in keeping with the philosophy of “keeping the good bridges good”. It is less expensive to taxpayers in the long run to keep a good bridge in good condition, than to let it deteriorate and then reconstruct it.

Under the Bridge Rehabilitation option, the bridge would be retained, structurally rehabilitated and the seismic vulnerabilities addressed. As part of the rehabilitation, the structural concrete deck would be replaced and the number of deck joints would be reduced. With today’s technology, particularly if prefabricated deck units are utilized, 75 years of reliable service is a realistic expectation

Planning level cost estimates were developed for the Bridge Preservation and Bridge Rehabilitation options.

An inflation rate was estimated using rates from both the US Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index and from Engineering News Records Construction Cost Index. The Consumer Price Index indicated an annual average 4% inflation rate since 1950 and a 3% inflation rate over the past three years. The Construction Cost Index showed a 5% annual inflation rate for same periods. The main difference between these two indices is that the Consumer Price Index tracks the prices of consumer goods while the Construction Cost Index tracks the costs of both labor and construction materials. This cost indices are summarized in Table ES-4.

Table ES-4 Cost Indices

US Department of Labor: Engineering News Record: Consumer Price Index Construction Cost Index Year Index Rate Year Index Rate 1950 24.1 1950 510 3.86% 4.98% 2006 200.6 2006 7751

2003 184 2003 6694 2.92% 5.01% 2006 200.6 2006 7751

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ES-17

and the inflation rate may come down. In light of the recent experiences in the New York State transportation market, a 5% inflation rate was used for the cost analysis. The total costs are very sensitive to the inflation rate. For example, if the inflation rate were to remain at 8%, the Present Worth of the rehabilitation options would increase by almost $20 million dollars over a 20 year period.

A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each option is provided. An objective of the study was to provide a 20-year maintenance/capital forecast for each option. The forecast would involve an assessment of needs for the structure based on a review of current conditions and vulnerabilities. Costs considered in each option include construction, maintenance and operation, a maintenance paint overcoat of the entire superstructure, right of way, and soft costs such as design, permitting, inspection, etc. Costs are summarized in Table ES-5.

It should be noted that when reviewing the options below the time frame for deck replacement has a major influence on the life cycle cost comparison of each option.

Table ES-5 Project Cost By Option

Bridge Bridge Bridge Preservation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Option Option 1 Option 2 Life Span 20 years >20 years >20 years Concrete Cast In Place Overlay Deck Precast Deck Net Present Worth $26,861,000 $62,477,000 $71,576,000 Total Cost $42,729,000 $109,249,000 $124,936,000

NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 5 BUFFALO SKYWAY MANAGEMENT STUDY

REPORT

PIN 5134.31, BIN 1001579 CITY OF BUFFALO ERIE COUNTY

In association with: Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page #

1.0 BRIDGE CONDITION AND VULNERABILITIES...... 1‐1 1.1 MATERIAL FACTORS ...... 1‐1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS...... 1‐3 1.3 OPERATIONAL FACTORS...... 1‐3 1.4 DESIGN DETAIL FACTORS ...... 1‐4 1.5 VULNERABILITY AND RISK ANALYSES...... 1‐8 2.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRAVEL PATTERNS ...... 2‐1 2.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES...... 2‐1 2.2 HEAVY VEHICLES...... 2‐1 2.3 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS ...... 2‐4 2.4 TRAVEL PATTERNS ...... 2‐4 3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...... 3‐1 3.1 COMMITTED HIGHWAY SYSTEM ...... 3‐1 4.0 ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT ANALYSIS...... 4‐1 4.1 INCIDENT REPORTS – BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT...... 4‐2 4.2 INCIDENTS – NIAGARA INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY COALITION...... 4‐4 4.3 ACCIDENTS REPORTED BY BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT...... 4‐5 4.4 SKYWAY ACCIDENT RATE ...... 4‐5 4.5 ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT SUMMARY...... 4‐13 5.0 SKYWAY BRIDGE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS...... 5‐1 5.1 BRIDGE PRESERVATION...... 5‐1 5.2 BRIDGE REHABILITATION...... 5‐2 5.3 PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR THE 2 OPTIONS ...... 5‐3

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page ii

LIST OF TABLES Page #

Table 2‐1 Skyway Traffic & Travel Patterns ‐ Year 2008...... 2‐5 Table 4‐1 Skyway Incidents Reported By Buffalo Police Department...... 4‐2 Table 4‐2 Skyway Incidents Reported By NITTEC...... 4‐4 Table 4‐3 Accident Summary Sheet ...... 4‐7 Table 4‐4 Accident Summary Report by Accident Category – Weather and Light Conditions ...... 4‐8 Table 4‐5 Accident Summary Report by Accident Category – Manner of Collision and Road Surface Condition...... 4‐9 Table 4‐6 Accident Summary Report for Reportable Accidents By – Contributing Factors By Number Of Occurrences ...... 4‐10 Table 4‐7 Predominant Accident Occurrence Summary by Category...... 4‐14 Table 5‐1 Cost Indexes ...... 5‐3 Table 5‐2 Project Cost By Option...... 5‐4

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES Page #

Figure 2‐1A Year 2008 Peak Hour Volumes – Upper Bridge Section ...... 2‐2 Figure 2‐1B Year 2008 Peak Hour Volumes – Slip Ramps of NY Route 5 ...... 2‐3 Figure 2‐2 Year 2008 Skyway User’s Daily Travel Pattern ...... 2‐6 Figure 3‐1 2008 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...... 3‐2 Figure 3‐2 2008 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 3‐3 Figure 3‐3 2030 Skyway AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...... 3‐4 Figure 3‐4 2030 Skyway PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 3‐5 Figure 3‐5 Year 2008 Highway Capacity Conditions With Skyway ...... 3‐6 Figure 3‐6 Year 2030 Highway Capacity Conditions With Skyway ...... 3‐7 Figure 4‐1 Annual Distribution Of Skyway Incidents By Type...... 4‐3 Figure 4‐2 Accident Segment Locations...... 4‐11 Figure 4‐3 Accident Cluster Locations ...... 4‐12

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page iv

APPENDICES

Appendix A Buffalo Skyway Traffic Report: NETSIM / CORSIM Model Appendix B Summary of Detailed Incident Reports By Buffalo Police Department Appendix C Incident Reports By NITTEC Appendix D Details of Accident History Appendix E Collision Diagrams Appendix F Field Observations and Photographs

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page v

INTRODUCTION

The Skyway is an elevated steel bridge rising 100 feet over the Buffalo River with an overall length of 1.1 miles. It is a four-lane expressway link of New York State Route 5 connecting the southern suburbs of Erie County with the Business District of the City of Buffalo, northern suburbs of Erie County and Interstate 190. It serves local, regional, intrastate, national and international travelers. The bridge is located at the edge of Central Business District of Buffalo and directly interchanges with Interstate 190.

• Peer Review of Similar Studies & Projects Nationwide • Bridge Condition and Vulnerabilities • Existing Traffic and Travel Patterns • Future Traffic Demands • Accident / Incident Analysis • Skyway Bridge Management Options

Chapter 1 discusses current Skyway conditions, maintenance history, as well as its vulnerabilities. Chapter 2 discusses current traffic and travel patterns, while Chapter 3 discusses future traffic volumes. Chapter 4 summarizes accident and incidents that have occurred on the Skyway in recent years. Finally, Chapter 5 is a discussion of various Skyway management options.

Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 1-1

1.0 BRIDGE CONDITION AND VULNERABILITIES

The Skyway is an elevated four-lane structure that carries traffic on Route 5 over the Buffalo River and Buffalo Ship Canal. It is approximately 5800 ft long and consists of 48 piers and 53 spans. In addition, there are four ramps that provide access on and off the Skyway. Construction of the Skyway and it’s associated on and off ramps began in 1950 and was completed in 1956 under five different contracts and at a cost of approximately $9.6 Million ($129 Million in 2006 dollars). The on and off ramps to the southbound I-190 were constructed under two additional New York State Thruway Authority contracts. One ramp provides access from the southbound I-190 to the outbound Skyway. Another ramp provides access from the inbound Skyway to the southbound I-190. A third ramp provides access from the inbound Skyway to Pearl Street and the Thruway Loop Ramp provides access from the inbound Skyway to the northbound I-190.

To evaluate the condition and vulnerability of the Skyway, Bergmann Associates visited the site, reviewed past bridge inspection reports, record plans, rehabilitation contracts, NYSDOT maintenance records, vulnerability studies and interviewed NYSDOT staff responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the structure. According to NYSDOT records, 24 capital contracts (including 5 to construct the bridge) have been completed since 1950. The total cost of these contracts is almost $60M. The approximate value of these contracts in today’s dollars is $175 Million.

The subsections below provide a general overview of the findings of this research. Recommendations on short-term and long-term maintenance and capital actions are provided in Section 5.0 “Skyway Bridge Management Options”.

1.1 MATERIAL FACTORS

a. Steel

The superstructure of the bridge, excluding the deck, is constructed of steel. The piers located adjacent to and north of the I-190 underpass are also built of steel, along with the piers on the exit ramp providing access to Pearl Street and the Thruway Loop Ramp. A paint system is used to protect the steelwork from corrosion. The original paint system and some subsequent coats used lead based paint with asbestos filler. From 1999 to 2005 a project was undertaken, and progressed under several contracts, to remove the lead-based asbestos-containing paint from the Skyway and repaint the steel. In 1994, a separate contract was let to replace the deteriorated steel catwalk system that runs under the deck. The catwalk allows for bridge maintenance and inspection access. Other deteriorated steel components, including floor beams and stringers, were also repaired or replaced at that time.

Today, the primary and secondary steel members are generally in good condition with some areas of minor deterioration. The areas of minor deterioration appear to be localized primarily to web stiffeners, lower web plates, connection plates and cover plates and do not affect the structural integrity of the bridge.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 1-2

b. Reinforced Concrete

Reinforced concrete was used for the construction of the deck, abutments, a majority of the piers, and all of the pier footings. Reinforced concrete is a durable construction material provided it is detailed correctly and suitable allowances are made for the environment in which it will be used. Deterioration can occur due to a number of reasons, the most prevalent for this structure being corrosion of the steel reinforcement combined with freeze- thaw action. Corrosion of the reinforcement typically results in eventual failure of the concrete cover, which is the layer of concrete between the steel reinforcement and concrete face. As the steel bars corrode, they expand due to a growing layer of oxides (i.e. rust). This creates significant forces that the concrete is unable to resist and the concrete covering the steel falls away. Freeze-thaw action, on the other hand, requires a crack or other defect where water can penetrate. The failure mechanism is similar to that of reinforcement corrosion; however, the expansive forces created by ice are not as large.

The concrete piers that support the Skyway are generally in good condition with some delamination and spalling at the tops of several piers. In 1990, the concrete substructures underwent an extensive $9.3 Million rehabilitation. Areas of deteriorated concrete were removed to a depth of 1½” behind the steel reinforcement and replaced. Unfortunately, the surfaces on most of the concrete repairs exhibit map cracking, which is primarily caused by shrinkage of the concrete. Subsequent biennial inspections have found these repairs to be structurally sound; thus, the surface cracking is not a detriment to the performance of the substructure units, but the life of repairs will be shorter due to the cracking, and will require additional maintenance to keep the cracks sealed.

The concrete deck of the Skyway is generally in good condition given its age and the volume of traffic that uses the structure. Section 1.4.b provides more detail on the condition of the deck.

c. Asphalt

There is currently no asphalt wearing surface on the Skyway or any of its associated ramps. Asphalt is typically used on concrete decks to improve the ride quality when the deck begins to spall and deteriorate, as well as to protect the concrete deck from salt and water intrusion. Prior to overlaying a bridge deck with asphalt, the structure must be evaluated to ensure that it has adequate capacity to carry the additional dead load. The degree of horizontal curvature of the structure also needs to be taken into account so that the asphalt is not pushed to one side of the bridge due to centrifugal forces of the vehicles going around the curve. Since the riding surface of the Skyway’s concrete deck is still in fair condition, it has not been necessary to overlay the concrete with an asphalt wearing surface.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 1-3

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

a. Climate

The bridge is typically exposed to cold winters followed by short summers. Mean annual temperatures vary from 24 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter to 71 degrees in the summer months, with a significant number of freeze-thaw cycles occurring during the winter months. The average annual snowfall for the City of Buffalo is approximately 90 inches. Buffalo is fairly humid with average humidity at 80% in the mornings and 63% in the afternoons.

Due to the proximity of the Skyway to the east coast of Lake Erie, wind speed can be great. Prevailing winds normally travel across the entire length of Lake Erie, approximately 250 miles. The water does not create any resistance allowing the wind to pick up full force and speed before reaching Buffalo. Mean wind speed in Buffalo for the year is 10 knots (11.5 mph). The coast guard pilot manual (36th edition) indicates a mean number of days per year with fog at 158; however, visibility is less than ½ mile only 2 days per year.

1.3 OPERATIONAL FACTORS

a. Traffic Volume

The existing Average Annual Daily Traffic volume (AADT) on the Skyway is 43,400 vehicles per day (vpd) as measured in 2008 by NYSDOT. There are approximately 4,500 vehicles traveling on the Skyway in both the inbound and outbound directions during the AM peak hour. There are 3,900 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Approximately 6.5 percent of those vehicles are considered heavy trucks. More information on traffic volumes can be found in Chapter 2 of this report.

b. Use of Deicing Salts

Salt is used during the winter months to reduce icing of the bridge deck thereby improving traffic safety. It does however, create a detrimental environment for both the structural steel and concrete that are exposed to direct application of deicing salts, stormwater runoff, or spray from vehicles. Chlorides (salts) cause the rate of corrosion to accelerate above the rate that would normally occur with exposure to water alone. In the case of reinforced concrete, the introduction of chlorides increases the potential for corrosion of the reinforcement. Chlorine reduces the alkalinity of the concrete, thereby allowing the corrosion reaction to start. (Uncontaminated concrete is highly alkaline, causing a passive oxide layer on the steel to develop which reduces further corrosion.).

For snow and ice control, NYSDOT maintenance crews currently use a mixture of sodium chloride (salt) and liquid magnesium chloride. Magnesium chloride works at lower ambient air temperatures than typical rock salt and can be applied before a storm to prevent ice from forming. The Skyway requires about 10 percent more magnesium chloride in the mix compared to at-grade roadways, because bridges typically freeze more quickly. Snow and

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 1-4

ice control on the Skyway is completed the same as on any other bridge. Crews have not noticed that the Skyway freezes any faster than any other elevated structure. This is perhaps because the higher portions of the bridge are above the brunt of the lake effect.

c. Bridge Washing

NYSDOT maintenance records indicate that the bridge has been cleaned four times since 1996, with the last cleaning taking place in 2001. (The cleaning and surface preparation necessary to paint the structural steel in recent years negated the need for a separate bridge washing contract). Similar to washing a car, bridge washing is beneficial in that it removes salts, dirt and other debris that will increase the rate of deterioration of the structure. Chlorides accelerate the corrosion process when water is present and debris accelerates the corrosion process by retaining excess moisture. Since the Skyway is not washed every year, some of the deposited salts and debris remain on the structure for a significant period. Ideally, the bridge should be washed annually in the spring to remove the chlorides and dirt as soon as possible.

d. Painting Frequency and Methods

NYSDOT maintenance records indicate that the Skyway has been repainted three times since its original construction, via four contracts. The mainline structure (excluding ramps) has 1.07 million square feet of steel surface area requiring paint. The dates of these four painting contracts are 1962, 1985, 1999 and 2003. In 1999, the contractor’s bid was unrealistically low to do the proper cleaning and painting. The contractor was unable to finish the work and filed for bankruptcy. Consequently, in 2003, a second contract was initiated where 50 percent of the 1999 work was removed and redone, and 50 percent was overcoated. The total cost of the two contracts was approximately $15 Million. In the past 20 years, lead and asbestos removal and containment regulations have been very dynamic at both the state and national level, further complicating the painting of the structure, and increasing costs. Under the 2003 contract, painting of most of the structural steel was completed by the end of 2004, with the joint zone areas completed by the end of 2005. After completion of this painting contract, the original lead-based paint and asbestos were essentially removed from the structure. The bridge is currently protected by a moisture- curing urethane paint system that has a typical life expectancy of 12 to 15 years before “spot and zone” repairs and a maintenance overcoat to the entire structure will be required.

1.4 DESIGN DETAIL FACTORS

a. Drainage System

Stormwater on the Skyway is collected through a series of deck level scuppers and downspouts which carry it to the base of the piers. The use of scuppers on bridge decks is generally undesirable because they require additional maintenance and they have a tendency to contribute to deck and superstructure deterioration. Scuppers are necessary on the Skyway due to the length of the structure and concrete barriers which prevent stormwater from draining off the edge of the deck. On bridges, such as the Skyway, that

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 1-5

pass over roadways or railroads, concrete barriers or curbing is required to prevent the stormwater from draining directly onto infrastructure, vehicles, and pedestrians underneath.

Several of the scupper downspouts reach ground level and tie in with a closed drainage system owned by the City of Buffalo. Others drain directly to the ground surface. The scuppers and downspouts require regular maintenance to keep them free of dirt and debris and to ensure that they are in proper working condition. This is necessary to ensure that water can be removed from the deck surface as quickly as possible.

b. Bridge Deck and Wearing Course

In 1974 the original deck was replaced with an 8½ inch thick reinforced concrete deck. In 1989 the deck was rehabilitated. The top of the deck was removed to 1 inch below the top mat of reinforcing steel. The top of the deck was reconstructed using epoxy-coated reinforcing steel and microsilica concrete that served as the integral wearing course. Microsilica is a material that is generally more durable and impermeable to water and chlorides when compared to conventional concrete. The microsilica has performed very well over the years, and is just starting to “show its age” with minor cracking and spalling. During the rehabilitation the concrete, cover on the top reinforcing steel was increased making the total deck thickness approximately 9½ inches. That thickness satisfies current design standards for new bridges.

c. Deck Joints

Bridge engineers have long recognized that deck joints are a maintenance nuisance. Today, new bridges are designed with as few joints as possible. The Skyway, due to its length and the fact that it was designed in the 1950s, has numerous joints. This negatively influences maintenance costs for NYSDOT personnel. Most of the deck joints on the bridge are located over piers where two spans abut each other. Failure of the joint seals allows water and chlorides to penetrate through the deck and deteriorate the superstructure steel and substructure concrete below. The deck joints have been replaced and/or repaired at three different times in 1964, 1989 and 2005. The current joint system utilizes an elastomeric seal, which works well with snowplows and is relatively easy to repair.

d. Steel Details and Fatigue

The first 38 spans of the Skyway (all spans that are south of the I-190 underpass) are each supported by two primary girders. The girders are constructed using steel angles and plates that are riveted together. This type of construction is classified as “fracture critical / non- redundant”, meaning that if one of the two primary girders were to fail, the span would collapse. On bridges that are classified as fracture critical, special emphasis has to be given to inspecting the fatigue prone areas of the steel. When steel is subjected to cyclical tensile stresses, it can cause microscopic cracks, which over time may propagate and eventually cause the steel to fracture. During previous bridge inspections conducted in 2003 and 2004, cracks were detected in some of the connections of the floor beams to the primary girders.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 1-6

These connections have since been repaired and during the 2005 inspection no additional fatigue cracks were found.

The two spans that cross the Buffalo River and Buffalo Ship Canal are called suspended spans, because they are suspended from the two abutting cantilevered spans by a pin and hanger system. This type of construction was common in the 1950s but is no longer used because the pins and hangers are very susceptible to corrosion (due to leaky joints above them) and subsequent “locking up” so they do not function properly. This can lead to fatigue cracking and could result in catastrophic failure (e.g. Mianus River Bridge in Connecticut) if undetected. One advantage of the pin and hanger system was that it moved expansion joints away from the substructure and helped reduce deterioration of the substructure from leaking joints. In 1974 when the deck was replaced it was discovered that the pin and hanger system was “locked” and not allowing for adequate thermal expansion/contraction. Consequently, it was decided to “lock” the pin and hanger permanently, by connecting the top and bottom girder flanges across the pin and hanger and eliminate the deck expansion joint. This alteration of the original design has changed the load distribution. The thermal movements/stresses which were originally accommodated in the expansion joint are now forced back to the fixed bearings and are accommodated in the flexibility of the piers. This has induced stresses into the piers and footings that they were not originally designed to accommodate. This configuration has been in place for over 30 years, and no signs of distress have been observed at the piers. By eliminating the expansion joints over the pins and hangers, the amount of corrosive runoff that they were subjected to has been greatly reduced. The pins and hangers appear to be in good condition and show no significant signs of deterioration.

e. Safety Appurtenances & Closures

Water or sand filled barrels serve as impact attenuators at strategic points along the Skyway to minimize damage and to protect motorists from collisions with fixed objects such as concrete barriers. NYSDOT maintenance personnel indicate that the impact attenuators at gore areas (entry and exit points) along the Skyway are hit about once a month, and vehicles usually drive away before authorities arrive on scene. This shows that they are working exactly as intended.

The barriers on either side of the roadway are in fair condition. These barriers help to keep plowed snow within the roadway. About twice a year, complaints of snow falling over the barrier during plowing are received. There have been no reports of any injuries due to snow removal on the Skyway.

Closures of the Skyway are often caused by flooding south of the bridge where the highway is not elevated. Visibility is another reason for closure. Visibility is significantly reduced at the base of the Skyway due to lake effect snow and fog. High winds have also caused problems on the Skyway. There were two incidents over the last 50 years where a truck and a stranded motorist were blown over the side of the bridge during high wind events.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 1-7

Over the four year period of 2003 through 2006, Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition (NITTEC) recorded four weather related full bridge closures, and 14 one-directional closures primarily to accidents. During the same period there were a total of 138 single lane closures due to: construction (50); disabled vehicles (37); debris (19); maintenance (17); and accidents (15).

The Skyway, between the west end and I-190, 49 accidents were reported during the study period with an accident rate of 1.00 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled (acc/mvmt). This is below the statewide average rate of 1.47 acc/mvmt. The Skyway, between I-190 and the east end, had eight reported accidents for an accident rate of 1.34 acc/mvmt, which is also below the statewide average accident rate.

When conditions permit, the Skyway can be closed via wireless technology. If the technology is faulty, sign boards can be operated manually. This system has been in place for over 5 years.

f. Lighting

The roadway is illuminated by pole mounted light standards attached to the median barrier. Electrical cables that service these lights are located in a conduit embedded in the concrete median barrier. The conduit location has been a persistent maintenance problem in some locations because the barrier joints have leaked water causing the conduit and wiring to deteriorate. In order to maintain service to the lights, new wiring functioning as “jumper cables” has been suspended from pole to pole and/or wired below the deck. The City of Buffalo is responsible for maintaining the lights while National Grid is responsible for providing electrical power.

The Skyway is also equipped with navigational lights on the spans over the Buffalo River and Buffalo Ship Canal. The original navigational lights were replaced in 1994 and appear to be in proper working condition.

g. Clearances

The Skyway is elevated to provide 100 feet of vertical clearance above the low water elevation of the Buffalo River and Buffalo Ship Canal, as documented in the 1974 and 1994 record plans. The horizontal clearances for shipping under the Skyway are 215 ft for the Buffalo River and 193 ft for the Buffalo Ship Canal. A number of Great Lakes freight ships pass under the Skyway each year. According to the U.S. Coast Guard District 9 (Cleveland) office, shipping on the Buffalo River has fluctuated in the past few years, with usage currently on the rise. The office was unable to provide an exact usage number without completing additional analysis.

Local shipping enthusiasts indicate that there were approximately 45 commercial transits of the 2 channels under the Skyway in 2006 (Each transit is comprised of one trip up and one trip down the channel, or a total of 90 passages under the bridge). In addition, an additional 50+/ transits were made by the Fire Tug Cotter and her ice breaking trips, Great Lakes

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 1-8

towing tugs, and marine tugs moving barges. Occasional dredging operations also increase marine channel traffic. A proposed Ethanol plant located upstream of the Skyway could add another 45 transits per year. Marinas immediately north of the Skyway moor numerous high mast sail boats that may occasionally wish to head south under the Skyway.

1.5 VULNERABILITY AND RISK ANALYSES

a. Hydraulic / Scour

Three Skyway piers each have one footing shaft located in the Buffalo River or Buffalo Ship Canal and are therefore subject to scour. Scour is defined as the erosion of soil or rock resulting from flowing water or wave action. Scour is a concern for all foundations located in water because the foundation can become undermined and damage to or failure of the substructure unit and span can result. During each biennial bridge inspection, the depth of the river bed around the piers is measured to determine extent of scour. Past inspections, have shown minimal scour and no threat to the Skyway foundations. These foundations are protected by steel caissons which further reduce their susceptibility to scour.

b. Seismic

Seismic vulnerability assessments are a series of screening and classification steps intended to identify bridges that are susceptible to earthquake damage, and to establish steps for taking corrective actions such as retrofit or replacement. Each bridge that that is assessed is given a vulnerability rating, which describes the likelihood and consequences of failure, and consequently, the urgency with which corrective actions need to be implemented. If seismic retrofit or replacement measures are required, a detailed engineering analysis of the structure is performed.

During a detailed seismic evaluation, a bridge is classified in one of four Seismic Performance Categories (SPC) and ranked A through D, based on the importance of the structure and the anticipated ground acceleration at the bridge. The four categories define the level of analysis and seismic resistant details required. SPC A bridges require no analysis and minimal seismic detailing while SPC D bridges require the most advanced analysis and extensive detailing. All bridges in Buffalo, NY fall into SPC B, which means that if a bridge has over two spans a seismic analysis is required as part of a rehabilitation design.

For Buffalo, NY the horizontal ground motion is based on a seismic acceleration coefficient of approximately 8% the acceleration of gravity. This coefficient represents the effective peak acceleration at the site for an earthquake that has a 10% probability of being exceeded in any 50-year period. In other words, the probability of a stronger earthquake occurring would be 1 in 500.

By comparison, the most of central New York and the Southern Tier are in Category A and have smaller acceleration coefficients. Downstate, including New York City, is in Category D where acceleration coefficients of 15% to 18% are used. All new bridges in New York State

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 1-9

are conservatively designed for acceleration coefficients of 19%. Areas of California can see ground accelerations of well over 50%.

To date, a Seismic Vulnerability Assessment has not been performed on the Skyway. Several construction details would need to be evaluated to determine the vulnerability of the structure to an earthquake. In general, piers that are tall and slender, such as several piers on the Skyway, tend to have larger displacements during an induced ground motion and high stresses where the columns meet the footings. The superstructure spans that are supported by these piers, rest on large steel rocker bearings which have a history of poor performance when subjected to large displacements. A seismic assessment should be performed prior to any major rehabilitation work.

c. Collision

The three Skyway piers that are located near the water are protected by pylons and fenders against impact damage from a passing vessel. Other piers located adjacent to the local city streets are vulnerable to impacts from errant motor vehicles. Due to size and configuration of the piers, and the low speed limit on these roadways, the damage that would be expected from a vehicle impact would be minimal, and would not threaten the integrity of the structure.

d. Overload

The Skyway currently has no load postings and vehicles within legal weight limits are free to use the bridge. Vehicles that are over the legal limit (varies based on the number of axles, axle spacing, and axle loads) must apply to NYSDOT for an overload permit. NYSDOT analyzes the vehicle application and determines if it can safely travel on the Skyway. As with any bridge, there are likely to be a number of overloaded trucks that use the structure without proper permitting. Over time, steel can become fatigued due to repeated use by overload vehicles.

e. Security

Shortly after the 9-11 World Trade Center terrorist attack in New York City, the Department completed an internal Infrastructure Security Risk Assessment for the Skyway. The assessment was done following state and national guidelines, and explored such factors as the likelihood of a terrorist attack, the regional economic and cultural or historic importance of the structure, accessibility, the transport of hazardous materials across the bridge, potential damage and the subsequent costs to repair, etc. The assessment is compared with similar assessments conducted on large structures across New York State, and prioritized accordingly. Details of the assessment and the type of security work performed to-date cannot be released for security reasons.

g. Weather

Refer to Section 1.2, Paragraph a. Climate.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 2-1

2.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRAVEL PATTERNS

Typical daily and peak hour traffic volume characteristics are summarized in this chapter. Daily and peak hour volumes using the Skyway are identified first followed by a description of heavy vehicles that use the Skyway. Following that is a description of the typical travel speeds. Finally, travel patterns of vehicles using the Skyway are summarized.

To obtain the travel characteristics of vehicles crossing the Skyway, several data collection efforts occurred. Peak hour manual counts were collected for 20 highway and bridge locations and a continuous machine was conducted on the bridge. Vehicles were recorded by type during the manual peak hour counts to identify heavy vehicles (those with either two or more axles or vehicles with dual tires on at least one axle). During the continuous count effort, vehicles were stratified by direction of travel as they crossed the bridge. This information provided a clearer picture of the directional split during peak commuter periods.

A Travel Time and Delay Study was performed for five roads that included segments of:

a) Route 5 – between Church Street and Tifft Street b) Ohio Street – between Michigan Street and Route 5 c) South Park Avenue – between Michigan Street and Bailey Avenue d) Interstate 190 – between Elm/Oak Interchange and I-90 Interchange e) Interstate 90 – between I-190 (Exit 53) and Ridge Road Interchange (Exit 55)

The study was conducted during weekday commuter peak periods and separated by direction of travel. Inbound and outbound trips with respect to the Central Business District were separately recorded. The travel time information collected also quantifies the typical peak period operating speeds of vehicles.

2.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) crossing the Skyway in 2008 is 43,400 vehicles per day. Approximately 4,500 of those daily vehicles cross the bridge during the morning peak hour and 3,900 cross during the afternoon peak.

A summary of year 2008 peak hour volumes crossing the Skyway are shown in Figures 2-1A and 2-1B. Figure 2-1A shows data for the bridge and northern study area roads. Figure 2-1B covers slip ramps south of the bridge serving traffic between Route 5 and Fuhrmann Boulevard.

2.2 HEAVY VEHICLES

Approximately 6.5 percent of the daily vehicles using the bridge are heavy vehicles. During the morning peak hour, the percentage of total vehicles that are heavy vehicles is 5.4 percent. Heavy vehicle composition during the afternoon peak hour is 4.6 percent.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 2-2

Figure 2-1A Year 2008 Peak Hour Volumes – Upper Bridge Section

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 2-3

Figure 2-1B Year 2008 Peak Hour Volumes – Slip Ramps of NY Route 5

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 2-4

2.3 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

Vehicles on the bridge during the morning commuter period typically travel at a speed of approximately 56 mph outbound and 48 mph inbound. During the afternoon peak period, traffic typically travels 53 mph inbound and 55 mph outbound.

A summary of daily and peak hour volumes, heavy vehicle composition and vehicle operating speeds during peak hours is provided in Table 2-1.

2.4 TRAVEL PATTERNS

Traffic crossing the Skyway has a directional bias during peak commuter periods. Traffic moves predominately inbound during the morning peak hour. It represents 76 percent of the total hourly volume on the bridge. The directional split is less severe during the afternoon peak hour. Approximately 68 percent of total vehicles travel outbound during that time.

Vehicles using the Skyway exhibit the following daily destination travel patterns:

a) Inbound vehicles are destined: • North on I-190 (43 percent). • North to the intersection of Church Street and Delaware Avenue (27 percent). • South on I-190 (26 percent). b) Outbound vehicles originate from: • Central Business District of City at the intersection of Church Street and Delaware Avenue (49 percent). • North on I-190 (42 percent).

These travel patterns can be seen in Figure 2-2.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 2-5

Table 2-1 Skyway Traffic & Travel Patterns - Year 2008

TRAFFIC VOLUMES DAILY 43,400 AM PEAK HOUR 4,500 PM PEAK HOUR 3,900

DIRECTIONAL FLOW OF VOLUMES AM PEAK HOUR 76 % INBOUND, 24 % OUTBOUND PM PEAK HOUR 68 % OUTBOUND, 32 % INBOUND

PERCENT OF TRAFFIC HEAVY VEHICLES DAILY 6.5 % AM PEAK HOUR 5.4 % PM PEAK HOUR 4.6 %

TYPICAL OVERALL OPERATING SPEED ON SKYWAY AM PEAK HOUR INBOUND 48 MPH OUTBOUND 56 MPH

PM PEAK HOUR INBOUND 53 MPH OUTBOUND 55 MPH

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 2-6

FIGURE 2-2 7% (1,500 AADT) YEAR 2008 SKYWAY USER’S DAILY TRAVEL PATTERN 36% 2% (8,100 AADT) (400 AADT)

7% (1,500 AADT)

42% (8,800 AADT

5% (1,100 AADT) 2% (400 AADT) 49% (10,300 AADT)

0 43% (9,600 27% AADT (6,100 AADT)

4% (900 AADT) 51% (10,700 AADT)

26% (5,800 AADT)

21% WESTBOUND (4,700 AADT) SKYWAY EASTBOUND 100% SKYWAY (21,000 AADT) 100% (22,400 AADT)

SKYWAY BRIDGE

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 3-1

3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES

The future functional need for the Skyway can be addressed by examining the usage in terms of peak hour demand by regional and local commuters. A planning horizon of approximately twenty (20) years is a typical time frame to determine and analyze the demand by users. Therefore, to address the capacity needs, a horizon year of 2030 was utilized. It coincides with the target year for planning of regional highway and transit infrastructure needs by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC). The GBNRTC is responsible for identifying the need for and staging of such infrastructure. Capacity needs of major highway infrastructure in the vicinity of the Skyway were examined both with and without the presence of the bridge.

Traffic forecasts were developed from information provided by GBNRTC, the agency responsible for forecasting regional traffic growth. They provided year 2030 AM and PM peak hour travel forecasts for the Skyway and surrounding road system using a calibrated and approved travel forecast model. Use of and adjustments to the raw model forecasts are described in a technical report provided in Appendix A.

3.1 COMMITTED HIGHWAY SYSTEM

The travel forecasts were developed for the “existing plus committed” highway system. The increase in traffic forecast for the year 2030 was predicated on certain highway improvements constructed by year 2012. Projects were included only if funding has been committed by area governmental agencies to insure implementation.

Specific projects within the immediate area of the Skyway considered “committed” and affecting roadway capacity are as follows:

• Ohio Street between Louisiana Street and Michigan Avenue will be reconstructed as a 3 lane road with one travel lane in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane. • Fuhrmann Boulevard between Michigan Avenue and Tifft Street will be reconstructed as a two-way road west of Route 5.

Peak hour traffic growth from year 2008 to 2030 on the Skyway and surrounding roadway system is shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-4 for the AM and PM peak hours. Daily capacity conditions for existing and year 2030 volumes are reflected in Figures 3-5 and 3-6.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 3-2

Figure 3-1 2008 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 3-3

Figure 3-2 2008 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 3-4

Figure 3-3 2030 Skyway AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 3-5

Figure 3-4 2030 Skyway PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 3-6

FIGURE 3-5

YEAR 2008 HIGHWAY CAPACITY CONDITIONS WITH SKYWAY

LEGEND:LEGEND:

UnderUnder CapacityCapacity << LOSLOS DD

NearNear CapacityCapacity == LOSLOS DD

Over CapacityCapacity >>= LOS LOSE E

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 3-7

FIGURE 3-6

YEAR 2030 HIGHWAY CAPACITY CONDITIONS WITH SKYWAY

LEGEND:LEGEND:

UnderUnder Capacity Capacity < LOS D

NearNear Capacity Capacity = LOS D

OverOver Capacity Capacit > yLOS E

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-1

4.0 ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT ANALYSIS

Accidents and incidents are two types of events that occur on the bridge and have been the focus of recent reports by the media. Two local agencies keep records of both events (accidents and incidents) but to different degrees. The agencies are the Buffalo Police Department and the Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition (NITTEC). The Buffalo Police Department retains two sources of events. One source is accidents that have been documented by completion of an accident form called a MV-104A form. The source of events is a listing of calls they receive requesting assistance on the bridge. This source is comprised of not only calls concerning reported accidents but requested for other purposes, such as a motorist or utility companies requesting assistance.

NITTEC keeps records of events that affect the capacity of the bridge. They are incidents that cause closure of lane(s) on the bridge and include not only collisions but also occasions when maintenance and weather causes it to be closed.

Records of accidents and incidents that occurred on the Skyway were obtained from the Buffalo Police Department and NITTEC. Specific and detailed information of accidents occurring on the Skyway was obtained by reviewing MV-104A forms provided by the Buffalo Police Department. The forms are a standard report form of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles to record accident information by police and/or drivers. Collision data on the MV- 104A forms provided by the Buffalo Police Department covered a period slightly more than four years. The data covered a period from December 1, 2002 through December 31, 2006.

Incidents are recorded by the Buffalo Police Department as a separate listing containing a single line entry. Incidents reported to the Buffalo Police Department were obtained and reviewed. They include calls to the police department that require assistance. These included calls regarding abandoned and stalled vehicles, debris on the roadway, persons on the bridge, assistance for work zones for construction and roadway maintenance, assistance for utility companies, drunk drivers, speeding vehicles, issues with traffic control, and accidents. Incident reports were provided for a four year period inclusive of January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2006.

Additional information about “incidents” is retained by NITTEC. NITTEC is an organization of fourteen agencies in Western New York and Southern Ontario. They record incidents reported for lane closures on the bridge related to:

• Accidents; • Construction/Maintenance; • Disabled Vehicles/Debris; and • Weather;

NITTEC provided “incident” reports for a slightly more than three year period from October 1, 2003 through November 30, 2006.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-2

Typically the Buffalo Police Department asks NITTEC to close the Skyway during an incident and NITTEC activates flashers and electronic message boards that inform vehicle drivers that Route 5 and the Skyway is closed between Church Street and Tifft Street.

4.1 INCIDENT REPORTS – BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT

Incidents reported on the Skyway and provided by the Buffalo Police Department are summarized in Table 4-1. A graphic distribution of reported incidents contained in Table 4-1 is presented in Figure 4-1. Table 4-1 Skyway Incidents Reported By Buffalo Police Department

INCIDENTS YEAR AVERAGE AVERAGE TOTAL NUMBER PERCENT Description Type 2003 2004 2005 2006 PER YEAR PER YEAR Accident – Property 1 70 50 54 35 209 52.2 11.4 Damage Only Accident – Injury 2 9 13 9 10 41 10.2 2.2 Assist Agencies - Utilities 3 3 4 4 7 18 4.5 1.0 Assistance with assault / mischievous behavior / 4 2 1 6 1 10 2.5 0.5 rescue / warrant/ etc. Assist a person in need of 5 13 11 14 3 41 10.2 2.2 help Drunk Driver 6 13 9 12 9 43 10.8 2.3 Irrational or questionable 7 35 39 44 42 160 40.0 8.7 person behavior Assistance with vehicle 8 25 20 20 16 81 20.2 4.4 Assist with questionable 9 28 36 35 33 132 33.0 7.2 driver behavior Assist with traffic or road 10 6 5 10 4 25 6.3 1.4 operations Animal Loose 11 14 9 6 0 29 7.3 1.6 Miscellaneous 12 72 57 60 66 255 63.8 13.8 Motorist Stranded 13 209 219 217 151 796 199.0 43.3

Total 499 473 491 377 1840 460 100

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-3

Figure 4-1 Annual Distribution Of Skyway Incidents By Type Skyway Incident Reports - Annual

50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 2003 30.0% 2004 25.0% 2005

Percent 20.0% 2006 15.0% Average 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 12345678910111213 Incident Types

Motorists Stranded and Miscellaneous calls account for approximately 57 percent of all incidents. Property Damage only and Injury accidents account for approximately 14 percent of all calls.

Detailed summaries of incident calls made to the Buffalo Police Department for the Skyway are provided in Appendix B.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-4

4.2 INCIDENTS – NIAGARA INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY COALITION

NITTEC either receives calls directly or monitors calls to the Buffalo Police Department and records incidents for the Skyway that potentially affect lane capacity. Incidents involving construction and maintenance activities, disabled vehicles or debris on the bridge, and weather are recorded as they pertain to lane closures.

A summary of incidents reported by NITTEC over a three year period of October 2003 through November 2006 is provided in Table 4-2. The information identifies if lane closures occurred and the cause if lanes were closed.

Table 4-2 Skyway Incidents Reported By NITTEC

TOTAL 4 14 138 20 176 100 PERCENT OF 2.3 7.9 78.4 11.4 100 TOTAL

Weather related closures of both directions on the Skyway occurred four (4) times over the three year study period. Accidents prompted closure of one direction on the bridge twelve (12) times or approximately four (4) times per year on average. Closure of one lane for construction activities and disabled vehicles accounted for approximately 63 percent of the closures, while accidents accounted for approximately 11 percent.

NITTEC reported closure of the Skyway and Route 5 between Church Street and Ridge Road on Saturday, February 3, 2007 between 5 PM and 12:30 AM Sunday, February 4th. The cause of closure was blowing snow and whiteout conditions on Route 5 between the south base of the bridge and Ridge Road.

Detailed summaries of incident calls recorded by NITTEC for the Skyway during the three (3) year study period are provided in Appendix C.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-5

4.3 ACCIDENTS REPORTED BY BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT

Accident reports were obtained from MV-104A records kept by the Buffalo Police Department. The records covered slightly more than four years, inclusive of December 1, 2002 through December 31, 2006. A total of 94 accidents were reported on the bridge. No accidents involving fatalities occurred during the four year period. Non-fatal injury (INJ) accidents accounted for 23 of the 94 occurrences. The remaining 71 accidents are classified as Property Damage Only (PDO).

A summary of accidents on the Skyway is provided in Table 4-3.

Accidents by type of weather and light conditions are summarized in Table 4-4 and those by manner of collision and road surface condition are summarized in Table 4-5. Table 4-6 provides a summary of accidents by contributing factors.

A detailed summary of the accident history is provided in Appendix D. Information contained on the accident report (MV-104A Forms) usually provided sufficient detail to locate the accident to a specific spot on the Skyway. The information was specific enough to locate 56 of the 94 accidents. The location descriptions for the 38 remaining accidents were insufficient. They only describe the accident as taking place on the bridge.

Collision diagrams for the 56 accidents containing sufficient location descriptions are contained in Appendix E.

A cluster of accidents occurred where the I-190 southbound ramp merges with the outbound Skyway. A total of 14 accidents occurred at this merge area during the study period. Eight (8) accidents involved rear-end collisions.

Another cluster of accidents occurred on the Skyway inbound between Milepost (MP) 303.5 and 303.6. This area of the bridge is near its highest elevation and is the beginning of the descent approach to Church Street. A total of 8 accidents occurred during the report period and 5 were rear-end collisions.

A field report for each cluster and pertinent photographs are provided in Appendix F.

4.4 SKYWAY ACCIDENT RATE

The Skyway is 1.1 miles long, extending from MP 302.7 to MP 303.9, as shown on Figure 4-2. This distance covers the elevated superstructure component of the bridge. Ramps of I-190 merge and diverge with the Skyway at MP 303.6. During the four year, one month period between December 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006, a total of 94 reported accidents occurred over the entire length of the Skyway.

Accident rates were determined for two segments of the Skyway containing different daily volumes and for two gore areas where I-190 ramps meet the Skyway. These rates were

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-6

compared to the New York State Statewide Averages for similar facilities statewide. The first segment (Segment 1) extends from the west end of the Skyway (MP 302.7) to I-190 and had an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 40,931 in year 2006. A total of 49 accidents including those with sufficient information to locate them and those with insufficient information to locate but assumed to occur on this segment, took place over this segment during the four year and one month period. This reflects a rate of 1.00 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel (acc/mvmt). This rate is approximately 32 percent less than the statewide average rate of 1.47 acc/mvmt for a fully access controlled, 4 lane divided urban highway.

The second segment (Segment 2) is located between the I-190 interchange (MP 303.6) and the east end of the Skyway at MP 303.9. It extends 0.3 miles. A total of 8 reported accidents occurred during the study period. This total includes both those located specifically on this section of the bridge and those assumed to occur here. Using a 2006 two-way AADT of 13,338 over this section yields an average accident rate of 1.34 acc/mvmt. This is approximately 9 percent less than the statewide average rate of 1.47 acc/mvmt for a fully access controlled, 4 lane divided urban highway.

An exit ramp diverges from inbound Skyway to southbound I-190 at MP 303.55. A cluster of accidents occurred at this location. It is identified as cluster 1 on Figure 4-3. During the study period, a total of 13 accidents were reported at this location. This total includes both those located specifically at this location and those assumed to occur here. An average accident rate of 0.40 accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/mev) occurred at this juncture. This is approximately 2.5 times greater than the statewide average rate of 0.16 acc/mev for diverging 1 lane urban off ramp.

The second cluster of accidents (cluster 2) is shown on Figure 4-3 and occurred where the southbound I-190 exit ramp joins the outbound Skyway. During the study period, a total of 24 accidents were reported. These included both those located specifically at this location and those assumed to occur here. An average accident rate of 0.75 acc/mev occurred at this juncture. This is approximately 6.8 times greater than the statewide average rate of 0.11 acc/mev for a merging 2 lane urban on ramp.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-7

Table 4-3 Accident Summary Sheet

Location: NYS Route 5- Buffalo Skyway Town: Buffalo Period Covered: 12/1/2002 - 12/31/2006 County: Erie Date: 3/16/2006

Time of Day No. of Accidents Direction of Approach No. of Accidents 6 AM – 10 AM 26 10 AM – 4 PM 24 East 58 4 PM – 7 PM 16 West 36 7 PM – 12 Mid 13 12 Mid – 6 AM 15

Total 94 Total 94

Weather No. of Accidents Accident Type No. of Accidents Clear 35 Rear-end 46 Fog 1 Skidded 31 Rain 14 Fixed Object – Debris 1 Sleet 3 Overtake – Sideswipe 13 Snow 19 Other 3 Cloudy 21 Unknown 1

Total 94 Total 94

Pavement No. of Accidents Accident Severity No. of Accidents Dry 42 Non-Fatal Injury 23 Wet 18 Property Damage Only 71 Snow/Ice 31 Slush 3

Total 94 Total 94

Time of Year No. of Accidents Light Conditions No. of Accidents Winter (Dec-Feb) 31 Day 57 Spring (Mar-May) 29 Dawn 3 Summer (June-Aug) 11 Dusk 2 Fall (Sept-Nov) 23 Dark-Road Lighted 32

Total 94 Total 94

Type of Vehicles No. of Accidents Passenger Cars 141 Pick-up/Panel 16 Commercial 13

Total 170

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-8

Table 4-4 Accident Summary Report by Accident Category – Weather and Light Conditions

REPORTABLE ACCIDENTS BY SEVERITY AND WEATHER CONDITION

WEATHER CONDITION FATAL INJURY P-D-O TOTALS

CLEAR 0 13 22 35

CLOUDY 0 4 17 21

RAIN 0 0 14 14

SNOW 0 5 14 19

SLEET/HAIL/FREEZING RAIN 0 0 3 3

FOG/SMOKE/SMOKE 0 0 1 1

OTHER / UNKNOWN 0 1 0 1

TOTALS 0 23 71 94

REPORTABLE ACCIDENTS BY SEVERITY AND LIGHT CONDITION

LIGHT CONDITION FATAL INJURY P-D-O TOTALS

DAYLIGHT 0 15 42 57

DAWN 0 1 2 3

DUSK 0 0 2 2

DARK-ROAD-LIGHTED 0 7 25 32

DARK-ROAD-UNLIGHTED 0 0 0 0

OTHER / UNKNOWN 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 0 23 71 94

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-9

Table 4-5 Accident Summary Report by Accident Category – Manner of Collision and Road Surface Condition

REPORTABLE ACCIDENTS BY SEVERITY AND MANNER OF COLLISION

MANNER OF COLLISION FATAL INJURY P-D-O TOTALS

REAR END 0 11 35 46

OVERTAKING 0 3 7 10

SKIDDING 0 7 24 31

DEBRIS 0 0 1 1

SIDESWIPE 0 1 2 3

OTHER / UNKNOWN 0 1 2 3

TOTALS 0 23 71 94

REPORTABLE ACCIDENTS BY SEVERITY AND ROAD SURFACE CONDITION

ROAD SURFACE CONDITION FATAL INJURY P-D-O TOTALS

DRY 0 13 29 42

WET 0 2 16 18

MUDDY 0 0 0 0

SNOW / ICE 0 6 25 31

SLUSH 0 1 0 1

OTHER / UNKNOWN 0 1 1 2

TOTALS 0 23 71 94

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-10

Table 4-6 Accident Summary Report for Reportable Accidents By – Contributing Factors By Number Of Occurrences

NUMBER OF DRIVER FACTORS: OCCURRENCES

ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT 3 DRIVER INATTENTION / DISTRACTION 6 DRIVER INEXPERIENCE 2 FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY 3 PASSING OR LANE USAGE IMPROPER 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL DISREGARDED 1 UNSAFE SPEED 1 FATIGUED / DROWSY 1 REACTION TO OTHER UNINVOLVED VEHICLE 9 FAILURE TO KEEP RIGHT 1 OTHER 1

SUBTOTAL 30

VEHICLE FACTORS:

OTHER VEHICLE 2

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

OBSTRUCTION / DEBRIS 1 PAVEMENT SLIPPERY 24 VIEW OBSTRUCTED / LIMITED 1

SUBTOTAL 26

TOTALS 94

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-11

Figure 4-2 Accident Segment Locations

SEGMENT 1

SEGMENT 2

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-12

Figure 4-3 Accident Cluster Locations

CLUSTER 2

CLUSTER 1

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-13

4.5 ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT SUMMARY

The Skyway is 1.1 miles long and typically accommodated 40,900 vehicles per day during 2006. A total of 94 accidents were reported by the Buffalo Police Department between December 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006 on the bridge. During this study period, the average accident rate for Segment 1 was 1.00 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel. This rate is approximately 32 percent less than the statewide average rate of 1.47 acc/mvmt for a fully access controlled, 4 lane divided urban highway. An accident rate of 1.34 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel occurred for Segment 2. This is approximately 9 percent less than the statewide average rate of 1.47.

Clusters of accidents occurred at two locations on the bridge. Cluster 1 shown on Figure 4-3, is located on inbound Skyway. It is at the juncture of the inbound Skyway with the exit ramp to southbound I-190. A total of 13 accidents occurred at this location over the study period, producing an average accident rate of 0.40 accidents per million entering vehicles. This rate is approximately 2.5 times greater than the statewide average rate of 0.16.

Cluster 2 is located at the juncture area of I-190 southbound ramp with outbound Skyway, and is identified on Figure 4-3. A total of 24 accidents occurred during the study period. This produced an average accident rate of 0.75 accidents per million entering vehicles which is approximately 6.8 times greater than the statewide average rate of 0.11.

Collectively, these two areas of clustered accidents represent 37 of the 94 total accidents on the bridge during the study period, or approximately 39 percent.

Predominate occurrence of accidents are summarized in Table 4-7 for severity, type, direction of occurrence, pavement and lighting conditions. A brief summary follows:

• Property Damage Only accidents account for 71, or 75 percent, of the 94 total accidents. • Rear-end accidents, 46, or 49 percent, occurred more often than other types of accidents. • More accidents occurred traveling inbound on the bridge, 58, or 62 percent than for outbound. • Of the 58 accidents that occurred inbound on the bridge, 21 occurred during the morning commute time between 6:00-10:00 AM. • More accidents occurred on dry pavement, 42, or 45 percent than on other pavement conditions. • A total of 57 accidents, or 61 percent occurred during day light conditions.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 4-14

Table 4-7 Predominant Accident Occurrence Summary by Category

ACCIDENT PREDOMINANT NUMBER OF PERCENT OF TOTAL CATEGORY TYPE/CONDITION OCCURRENCES OCCURRENCES (94) Severity Property Damage only 71 75 Type Rear End 46 49 Direction of Travel Inbound 58 62 Pavement Condition Dry 42 45 Lighting Condition Daylight 57 61

Total 94 100

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 5-1

5.0 SKYWAY BRIDGE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

The following two (2) Skyway management options were considered as part of this study and preliminarily screened for further consideration:

• Bridge Preservation (maintain current condition/functionality) • Bridge Rehabilitation

A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each option is provided in this chapter. An objective of the study was to provide a 20-year maintenance/capital forecast for each option. The forecast would involve an assessment of needs for the structure based on a review of current conditions and vulnerabilities. Costs considered in each option include construction, maintenance and operation, right of way, and soft costs such as design, permitting, inspection, etc. It should be noted that when reviewing the options below that the time frame for deck replacement has a major influence on the life cycle cost comparison of each option.

5.1 BRIDGE PRESERVATION

Tasks under the Bridge Preservation option would include:

• Annual in-house maintenance (i.e., pothole repairs, litter removal) • Annual snow and ice control • Annual bridge washing to remove salt and dirt from the structure • Biennial inspections and underwater bridge inspections every 5 years. • Capital work including: o Replacement of the current roadway lighting system. o Replacement of the concrete median barrier. o Replacement of the concrete overlay within 5 years to protect the bridge deck from deterioration. o Replacement of joints and headers when the overlay is replaced. o Concrete substructure repairs. o Spot and Zone corrosion repair and a maintenance paint overcoat of the entire steel superstructure. o Design and inspection services necessary for contract capital work. o A seismic vulnerability analysis.

It should be emphasized that this option is predicated on the assumption that the existing structural deck will last another 20 years. In 20 years, the deck will be 53 years old, which is a very old age for a bridge deck, particularly one in the Northeast where it is subject to harsh

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 5-2

winter conditions, deicing salts, numerous freeze/thaw cycles, and heavy traffic volumes. The remaining life of the deck is the determining factor on the viability of this option. For example, if the bridge deck is replaced in 21 or 22 years, then the 20 year life cycle analysis for the Bridge Preservation option will provide a false impression, because it will fail to address the significant capital cost expenditure just beyond the 20 year window.

The Bridge Preservation option, while keeping the bridge in good physical condition, would not address seismic deficiencies, or the potential for aesthetic and/or multi-modal opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle use.

5.2 BRIDGE REHABILITATION

Annual maintenance and operation costs would be similar to those listed under the Bridge Preservation option. There are differences in the magnitude and type of capital expenditures between the options. Capital expenditures anticipated for the Bridge Rehabilitation option are as follows:

• Structural deck and wearing course replacement • Replacement of expansion joints • New lighting system, including poles • Miscellaneous steel repairs • Spot and zone cleaning of structural steel and paint overcoat of entire bridge • Replacement of concrete barriers • Substructure repairs • Design and inspection services necessary for the contract capital work. • A seismic vulnerability analysis • Seismic retrofitting (bearing replacement, removal of pins/hangers, etc)

Pursuant to current NYSDOT design standards, removal of the existing deck will trigger a seismic analysis of the structure to determine the extent of retrofitting needed. Seismic retrofitting is usually done when a deck is being replaced since it is easier and more cost effective to lift (jack) the steel and bearings when the dead load of the concrete deck and the live loading from traffic do not have to be addressed. Based on this review of the structure, it is anticipated that the seismic analysis will require replacement of the existing rocker bearings, and removal of the pin and hanger assemblies.

Two options for the Rehabilitation option are considered. Option 1 utilizes a traditional cast-in- place concrete deck, while Option 2 would use precast concrete deck units. The additional cost of the precast panels must be weighed against the benefit of being able to open the full bridge

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 5-3

width to traffic each morning, and the improved quality offered by precast panels that are made under controlled conditions in a precaster’s yard.

5.3 PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR THE 2 OPTIONS

Planning level cost estimates were developed for the Bridge Preservation and Bridge Rehabilitation options.

Table 5-1 Cost Indexes

US Department of Labor: Engineering News Record: Consumer Price Index Construction Cost Index Year Index Rate Year Index Rate 1950 24.1 1950 510 3.86% 4.98% 2006 200.6 2006 7751

2003 184 2003 6694 2.92% 5.01% 2006 200.6 2006 7751

In New York State, transportation agencies have experienced a significant increase in highway and bridge construction costs in the past four years due in large part to fuel and material price escalations. Increases have averaged 8% per year. It appears now that the market has stabilized, and the inflation rate may come down. In light of the recent experiences in the New York State transportation market, a 5% inflation rate was used for the cost analysis summarized in Table 5- 2. The total costs are very sensitive to the inflation rate. For example, if the inflation rate were to remain at 8%, the Present Worth of the rehabilitation option would increase by almost $20 Million.

New York State Department of Transportation Skyway Management Study PIN 5134.31 / D025511 City of Buffalo, Erie County Page 5-4

Table 5-2 Project Cost By Option

The Present Worth method is commonly used to compare mutually exclusive options by taking into account the time value of money. The Net Present Worth of the Preservation and Rehabilitation options is the total 20 years of expenditures represented in 2007 dollars. The total cost of the Preservation and Rehabilitation options is the complete cost of the project at the end of the 20-year life cycle.

New York State Department of Transportation