REVISED DRAFT FINAL REPORT
NNYYSS RROOUUTTEE 1122 CCOORRRRIIDDOORR SSTTUUDDYY PPHHAASSEE IIII
Broome, Chenango, Madison & Oneida Counties
Prepared For:
New York State Department of Transportation
October 2008
NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
NYS ROUTE 12 CORRIDOR STUDY PHASE II
October 2008
Prepared For :
New York State Department of Transportation Region 2 Region 9 207 Genesee Street 44 Hawley Street Utica, New York 13501 Binghamton, New York 13901
In Conjunction With:
Broome County Chenango County 47 Thomas Road 79 Rexford Street Binghamton, New York 13901 Norwich, New York 13815
Madison County Oneida County 139 North Court Street 321 Main Street Wampsville, New York 13163 Utica, NY 13501
And the Route 12 Task Force
Prepared By :
Barton & Loguidice, P.C. Wilbur Smith Associates 290 Elwood Davis Road 1301 Gervais Street Box 3107 P.O. Box 92 Syracuse, New York 13220 Columbia, South Carolina 29202
October 2008 - i - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Phase II Objectives 1.2 Description of Study Area
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 NY-12 Function 2.2 Analysis of Corridor Community Land Use 2.3 Analysis of Corridor – Base Maps 2.4 Traffic Data and Analysis 2.5 Phase I Report 2.6 Endangered and Threatened Species Inquiry 2.7 Origin-Destination Analysis
3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
3.1 Public Meeting Schedule & Locations 3.2 Website 3.3 Distributed Materials 3.4 Comments Received
4. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
4.1 Problem Identification
5. LONG RANGE ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Evaluation Criteria 5.2 Preliminary Alternatives Considered 1. I-88 Connector 2. I-81 Connector 3. NY-8 Connector 4. Hamilton Connector 5. Norwich Alternate Route (CR-32) 6. Norwich Bypass - West (New) 7. Sherburne Bypass (New) 8. Grade Separated Interchanges 9. 3-Lane Segments 10. Limited Access Expressway on New Alignment 11. Other Municipal Bypasses 5.3 Economic Analysis
October 2008 - ii - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
6. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Summary 6.2 Decision-Making Matrix 6.3 Final Recommendations
LIST OF APPENDICES
• Appendix A: Phase I Report & Status of Phase I Recommendations
• Appendix B: GIS Maps
• Appendix C: Public Involvement
• Appendix D: Evaluation Matrix
• Appendix E: Traffic Data & Level-of-Service Analysis
• Appendix F Planning Construction Costs
October 2008 - iii - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
1. INTRODUCTION
October 2008 - 1 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Phase II Objectives
New York State Route 12 (NYS Route 12) is one of New York’s primary north-south transportation corridors. The study area includes the section from Binghamton to Utica, which is approximately 84 miles. With direct access to Interstate highways in both the Binghamton and Utica areas, this route has experienced growth in traffic over the years, and as such, also experiences the transportation problems that coincide with that growth. The growth along the corridor has resulted in an increase in heavy vehicles, turning movements, pedestrian activity, on-street parking accommodations, and traffic signals. Additional information regarding the transportation problems can be found in Section 4.1 Problem Identification.
This Phase II Study will expand upon the previously completed Phase I Report (Appendix A.) by exploring the functionality of the regional of highway network. Potential macro-scale improvements will be evaluated in numerous aspects, with a particular emphasis on the following: • Existing corridor conditions • Public input and comments • Regional-network level improvements to the corridor • Economic Impacts
The conventional approach to corridor study analysis focuses on the benefits of the highway improvements to its users, in terms of changes in travel time, safety, or operating costs. These impacts can be quantified in monetary terms, and compared to the project’s implementation costs to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the project as a public sector investment. A wider-ranging approach, enabled by recent advances in economic forecasting and modeling techniques, considers not only the direct benefits of the highway on its users, but also the broader impacts on the regional economy. Economic benefits may be defined as positive impacts to the area such as the generation of additional jobs, business sales, or disposable income. The most common and recognized measure of economic benefit is changes to disposable income, which reflects the change in wage income earned in the region. These benefits can be compared to economic costs, which represent the outflow of disposable income. See Section 5.3 for included economic analyses.
October 2008 - 2 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
1.2 Description of Study Area
NYS Route 12 begins at US Route 11 in Broome County and continues north to the intersection of NYS Route 37 in St. Lawrence County. The focus area of this study includes the area from US Route 11 in the Town of Chenango, Broome County through the Towns of Greene, Oxford, Norwich, North Norwich, and Sherburne in Chenango County; Hamilton and Brookfield in Madison County; and Sangerfield, Marshall, Paris, and New Hartford in Oneida County; and ends at the NYS Thruway (I-90) in the City of Utica, a distance of approximately 84 miles.
NYS Route 12 begins at US Route 11 in Broome County and continues north to the intersection of NYS Route 37 in St. Lawrence County. The focus area of this study includes the area from US Route 11 in the Town of Chenango, Broome County through the Towns of Greene, Oxford, Norwich, North Norwich, and Sherburne in Chenango County; Hamilton and Brookfield in Madison County; and Sangerfield, Marshall, Paris, and New Hartford in Oneida County; and ends at the NYS Thruway (I-90) in the City of Utica, a total of approximately 84 miles.
NYS Route 12 originally extended south into downtown Binghamton by running concurrent with US Route 11. Since the original construction, bypasses have been built around Greene, N. Norwich, Barneveld, and Paris.
Expressway sections in the Utica area were built in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Prior to that, NYS Route 12 followed Genesee Street through downtown Utica, and then tracked north along Trenton Road (Oneida CR 91) before returning to its present course just south of Mapledale Road.
The Regional Network studied includes the above-described NYS Route 12 corridor, Interstates I-81, I-88, and I-90 between Binghamton, Syracuse, and Utica; as well as NYS Routes 20, 12B, 8, 320, 23, and 79, as shown in the following graphic:
October 2008 - 3 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
ONEIDA COUNTY SYRACUSE UTICA
MADISON COUNTY NEDROW ONONDAGA COUNTY
HAMILTON
TULLY
CORTLAND COUNTY SHERBURNE
CHENANGO CORTLAND COUNTY
SOUTH NEW BERLIN
OXFORD
GREENE
TIOGA COUNTY BROOME COUNTY
BINGHAMTON
October 2008 - 4 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
October 2008 - 5 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 NYS Route 12 Function
New York State Route 12 is a primary transportation corridor serving the Binghamton, Norwich, and Utica communities. NYS Route 12 between Interstate 81 (Binghamton) and Route 23 (Norwich) is on the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS designation continues along Route 23 and Route 8 into the Utica area.
The corridor is generally rural and agricultural, with pockets of development through the urban areas in Binghamton, Greene, Oxford, Norwich, Sherburne, Waterville, and Utica.
Some general information about NYS Route 12 is as follows:
NYS Route 12 Description: • Southern Terminus: US Route 11, Chenango Bridge • Northern Terminus: NYS Route 37, Morristown • Full Length: 222.47 miles (358.18 km) o Counties: Broome o Chenango o Madison o Oneida o Lewis o Jefferson o St. Lawrence • Cities: o Norwich o Utica o Watertown • Villages: o Oxford o Sherburne o Waterville o New Hartford o Boonville o Port Leyden o Lyons Falls o Lowville o Copenhagen o Clayton
October 2008 - 6 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
o Alexandria Bay • Alternate Road Names: o Front St. o Canal St. o Broad St. o Main St. o Utica Rd. o Faulkner Rd. o Sanger Ave. o Stafford Ave. o New Paris Rd. o Genesee St. o Erwin Pkwy. o Dayan St. o Van Allen Rd. o Gifford St. o State St. o Court St. o Leray St. o Bradley St. o James St.
2.2 Analysis of Corridor - Community Land Use
From a regional perspective, land use along the NYS Route 12 corridor is mainly comprised of large undeveloped forest and agricultural tracts. Low intensity residential communities dot the corridor, with an occasional industrial and urban areas intermixed. Refer to Appendix B for Geographic Information System (GIS) based maps showing existing land uses.
Each municipality along the NYS Route 12 corridor was contacted and inquired regarding land use regulations. The following table summarizes the data received:
October 2008 - 7 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Site Zoning Comprehensive Flood Subdivision Plan Ordinance Plan Program Regulations Review Broome County Chenango x Barker x
Chenango County (T) Oxford x x x (T) North Norwich x x x (T) Norwich x x x (T) Preston x (T) Sherburne x x x (T) Greene x x x x (V) Oxford x x x (V) Greene x x x (V) Sherburne x City of Norwich x x x x
Madison County (T) Hamilton x x x (T) Brookfield x
Oneida County
2.3 Analysis of Corridor – Base Maps
The Phase I Report focused on the NYS Route 12 corridor and the functionality along the route. This Phase II Report focuses on the Regional Network.
During the Phase II analysis, the electronic GIS project base map developed during Phase I has been expanded to include data collected for the Regional Network. The revised data set includes federal and state wetlands, historic and significant properties, environmental hazard areas, and large tracts of private and agricultural lands. Population data, average commuting distances, and household income based on municipality are included in the GIS data set with various maps attached as Appendix B.
October 2008 - 8 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
2.4 Traffic Data and Analysis
A. Regional Network Traffic Volumes
The Regional Network, as described in Section 1.2, includes Interstates I-81, I-88, and I-90 between Binghamton, Syracuse, and Utica; as well as numerous interconnecting New York State routes.
A summary of available tabulated traffic volume data is included in the following tables:
Interstate 81 (I-81) Section 2006 2010 2020 Trucks AADT AADT AADT Binghamton to Cortland 24200 25685 29808 9% Cortland to Tully 32400 34388 39909 15% Tully to Nedrow (I-481) 40400 42879 49763 9% Nedrow (I-481) to I-90 76000 80664 93613 9%
Interstate 90 (I-90) Section 2006 2010 2020 Trucks AADT AADT AADT I-81 to I-481 37300 39589 45944 18% I-481 to Utica 32800 34813 40402 22%
NYS Route 8 Section 2006 2010 2020 Trucks AADT AADT AADT South New Berlin (South of NYS Route 1530 1624 1885 19% 23) South New Berlin (North of NYS Route 2410 2558 2969 12% 23)
NYS Route 23 Section 2006 2010 2020 Trucks AADT AADT AADT Norwich (East of NYS Route 12) 1700 1804 2094 4% Norwich (West of NYS Route 12) 4490 4766 5531 6%
October 2008 - 9 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
NYS Route 12 (Supplemental) Section 2006 2010 2020 Trucks AADT AADT AADT South of Greene 5950 6315 7329 10% North of Greene 5430 5763 6688 12% South of Norwich 7670 8141 9448 8% North of Norwich 7520 7981 9263 12% South of NYS Route 12B 6800 7217 8376 8% North of NYS Route 12B 2970 3152 3658 8%
In addition to the Traffic Volume Report data, the following supplemental traffic data was collected for intersecting roads along the NYS Route 12 corridor:
October 2008 - 10 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC DATA (2005 – 2006) West of NYS Route 12 East of NYS Route 12 Directional Flow Directional Flow Peak Eastbound Westbound Peak Eastbound Westbound AADT Hour AM(PM) AM(PM) AADT Hour AM(PM) AM(PM) Broome County NYS Route 12A NA NA NA NA 12507 1376 550(826) 826(550) CR 96 NA NA NA NA 1738 191 76(115) 115(76) CR 128 1400 154 92(62) 62(92) NA NA NA NA NYS Route 79 1546 170 102(67) 67(102) 1350 149 60(89) 89(60)
Chenango County CR 1/Cloverdale Rd. NA NA 2(17) 8(6) NA NA NA NA CR 2/Genegantslet Road NA NA 38(58) 26(38) NA NA NA NA NYS Route 206 2998 330 198(132) 132(198) NA NA NA NA NYS Routes 206/41 NA NA NA NA 6149 676 403(273) 273(403) NYS Route 41 1320 145 87(58) 58(87) NA NA NA NA CR 32C/Bridge Street NA NA NA NA NA NA 16(17) 13(14) CR 3 NA NA 40(20) 7(35) NA NA NA NA NYS Route 220 1422 156 94(62) 62(94) 3431 377 151(226) 226(151) CR 4/Georgetown Road 556 23(38) 16(18) NA NA NA NA CR 32B NA NA NA NA NA NA 31(72) 76(93) Hail Street NA NA NA NA NA NA 99(117) 208(275) Main Street 0 226(240) 107(168) 0 120(220) 210(206) NYS Route 23 4173 459 276(183) 183(276) 4781 526 210(316) 316(210) NYS Route 320 NA NA NA NA 5233 576 230(346) 346(230) CR 23 NA NA 81(62) 37(73) NA NA NA NA CR 32 NA NA NA NA NA NA 100(124) 78(130) NYS Route 80 1669 184 110(74) 74(110) 3225 355 142(213) 213(142) NYS Route 12B 5872 646 388(258) 258(388) NA NA NA NA CR 24/Shaker Brook Road NA NA NA NA NA NA 14(62) 64(41)
Oneida County US Route 20 3295 362 217(145) 145(217) 3305 364 146(218) 218(146) Sanger Hill Road 0 0 NYS Route 315 1684 185 111(74) 74(111) NA NA NA NA CR 13/Kellogg Street 0 0 Paris Road NA NA NA NA 0
October 2008 - 11 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Regional Network Level-of-Service
Existing mainline Levels-of-Service (LOS) have been determined for each of the Regional Network segments. Level of service, as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) , is a letter designation assigned to a specified range of traffic delay values. Delay as calculated using the methodologies of the HCM is the average amount of time required to complete a movement through a roadway segment. LOS 'A' indicates free flow traffic conditions; whereas a LOS 'F' indicates traffic jam/breakdown conditions.
Some factors that contribute to a LOS include overall traffic volumes, peak-hour volumes, posted speed limits, pavement and shoulder conditions, roadway geometry, vehicle type distribution (trucks, farm vehicles), and intersection density.
The following LOS information (calculated using the HCS segmental method) has been added to the electronic GIS data set for the 2006 & 2026 evaluation years.
Interstate 81 (I-81) Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 Exit 6S to Exit 6N 1437 B 1603 B Exit 6N to Exit 7 1401 B 1563 B Exit 7 to Exit 8S 1501 B 1675 C Exit 8S to Exit 8N 1164 B 1299 B Exit 8N to Cortland Co. Line 1077 B 1202 B Cortland Co. Line to Exit 9 1102 B 1229 B Exit 9 to Exit 10 1244 B 1389 B Exit 10 to Exit 11 1146 B 1279 B Exit 11 to Exit 12 1479 B 1647 B Exit 12 to Exit 13 1448 B 1615 B Exit 13 to Exit 14 1716 B 1915 C Exit 14 to Exit 15 1802 B 2011 C Exit 15 to Exit 16A 2140 C 2388 C Exit 16A to Exit 17 2416 B 2696 B Exit 17 to Colvin Street 2844 B 3174 C Colvin Street to Exit 18 4499 D 5020 D Exit 18 to I-690 4934 F 5506 F I-690 to Exit 24 5524 E 6164 F Exit 24 to Exit 25 4523 D 5047 D Exit 25 to Exit 25A 4531 D 5034 D
October 2008 - 12 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Interstate 481 (I-481) Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 Exit 1 (I-481) to Exit 2 1207 B 2209 C Exit 2 to Exit 3 1979 C 2209 C Exit 3 to Exit 4 (I-690) 3501 E 3907 F Exit 4 (I-690) to Exit 5 2799 D 3124 D Exit 5 to Exit 6 (I-90) 2008 C 2240 C
Interstate 90 (I-90) Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 Exit 31 (Utica) to Exit 32 1600 B 1800 C Exit 32 to Exit 33 1900 C 2100 C Exit 33 to Exit 34 2300 C 2600 D Exit 34 to Exit 34A (I-481) 2600 D 2900 D
Interstate 88 (I-88) Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 NYS Route 7 NYS Route 88 to 980 B 1094 B Overlap NYS Route 7 to NYS Route 12A 1577 C 1760 C Overlap NYS Route 12A to NYS Route 369 1299 B 1450 B to NYS Route 7 NYS Route 369 867 A 967 A Overlap NYS Route 7 to NYS Route 992P 798 A 891 A Overlap NYS Route 992 P to NYS Route 79 708 A 790 A NYS Route 79 to NYS Route 206 713 A 795 A NYS Route 206 to Del/Chen Co. Line 692 A 772 A Del/Chen Co. Line to NYS Route 8 645 A 720 A
October 2008 - 13 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
NYS Route 8 Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 I-88 to CR 35 661 C 737 C CR 35 to CR 51 342 B 382 B CR 51 to NYS Route 23 171 B 191 B to NYS Route 80 NYS Route 23 245 B 274 B (start) NYS Route 80 to NYS Route 80 386 C 431 C (start) (end) NYS Route 80 to CR 96 169 B 189 B (end) CR 96 to On/Mad Co. Line 299 C 333 C On/Mad Co Line to CR 7 450 C 502 C CR 7 to Town of Paris 607 C 678 C Town of Paris to Oneida Street 650 C 726 C Oneida Street to Holman City Road 676 C 754 C Holman City Road to CR 9 748 C 835 C CR 9 to Valley View 1068 D 1192 D
NYS Route 320 Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 NYS Route 12 to NYS Route 8 781 D 872 D
October 2008 - 14 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
NYS Route 12B Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 NYS Route 12 to Town Road 34 581 C 648 C Town Road 34 to Mad/Chn Co. Line 473 C 528 C Mad/Chn Co. Line to S Ham Lane 365 C 407 C S Ham Lane to CR 87 641 E 715 E CR 87 to NYS Route 46 719 E 803 E to US Route 20 & NYS Route 46 158 B 176 B NYS Route 26 US Route 20 to US Route 20 514 C 573 C Overlap Overlap US Route 20 to NYS Route 315 315 C 352 C Overlap NYS Route 315 to NYS Route 233 597 C 666 C NYS Route 233 to CR 16 625 C 697 D CR 16 to NYS Route 412 728 D 812 D to NYS Route 5B NYS Route 412 1294 D 1444 E Overlap NYS Route 5B to NYS Route 5B 1546 E 1725 E Overlap Overlap NYS Route 5B to NYS Route 5 848 D 946 D Overlap
October 2008 - 15 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
US Route 20 Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 I-81 to US 11 733 E 818 E US 11 to Apulia Road 384 E 420 E Apulia Road to NYS Route 91 265 E 296 E NYS Route 91 to NYS Route 92 217 C 242 C to NYS Route 13 NYS Route 92 952 D 1062 D Overlap NYS Route 13 to NYS Route 13 1110 E 1238 E Overlap Overlap NYS Route 13 to Carriage Line 605 A 675 A Overlap Carriage Line to CR 67 553 A 617 A CR 67 to Cambridge Ave 314 A 350 A Cambridge Ave to CR 45 422 A 470 A to NYS Route 46 CR 45 292 A 326 A Overlap NYS Route 46 to NYS Route 46 794 D 886 D Overlap Overlap NYS Route 46 to NYS Route 26 320 B 357 B Overlap Overlap NYS Route 26 to NYS Route 12B 439 C 490 C Overlap Overlap NYS Route 12B to NYS Route 12B 313 A 350 A Overlap Overlap NYS Route 12B to NYS Route 8 196 A 219 A Overlap
October 2008 - 16 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
NYS Route 12 (NYS Route 12A to NYS Route 206) Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 NYS Route 12A to CR 96 1258 D 1404 E CR 96 to NYS Route 79 1135 D 1267 D NYS Route 79 to Brm/Chen Co. Line 907 D 1012 D Brm/Chen Co. to NYS Route 206 791 C 883 C Line
Front Street to South 1163 D 1297 D
NYS Route 12 (NYS Route 206 to the City of Norwich) Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 NYS Route 206 to CR 3A 568 E 634 E CR 3A to CR 3 460 C 513 C CR 3 to NYS Route 220 518 E 578 E NYS Route 220 to CR 4 675 C 753 C CR 4 to Wal-Mart Ent. 629 C 702 C Wal-Mart Ent. to (C) Norwich 1250 E 1396 E NYS Route 12 (City of Norwich) Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 City Line to City Line 1503 E 1678 E
NY Route 12 (Norwich to NYS Route 12B) Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 City Line to NYS Route 320 1568 E 1750 E NYS Route 320 to Nor. Town Line 862 C 962 C Nor. Town Line to NYS Route 80 745 C 832 C NYS Route 80 to NYS Route 12B 1004 E 1120 E
October 2008 - 17 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
NYS Route 12 (NYS Route 12B to NYS Route 5) Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 NYS Route 12B to Mad/Chn Co. Line 401 C 447 C Mad/Chn Co Line to CR 74 156 B 174 B CR 74 to On/Mad Co. Line 272 B 304 B On/Mad Co. Line to US Route 20 352 B 393 B US Route 20 to CR 7 504 E 562 E CR 7 to Shanley Road 512 C 571 C Shanley Road to CR 13 423 C 473 C CR 13 to NYS Route 921E 585 C 653 C NYS Route 921E to NYS Route 5 2091 E 2334 E
NYS Route 12 (NYS Route 5 to I-90) Section to Section vph LOS vph LOS 2006 2006 2026 2026 NYS Route 5 to I-90 3397 B 3791 B
The following map summarizes the LOS information:
October 2008 - 18 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
C(D) D(D) B(C) C(C ) C(C) D(D) B(B) E(E) D(E) D(D) F(F) D(D) D(D) D(D) E(F) C(D) C(C) B(C) C(C) C(C) C(C) C(C) A(A) C(C) B(B) C(C) C(C) B(C) C(C) A(A) C(C) C(C) C(C) E(E) A(A) C(C) E(E) D(B) B(B) A(A) B(C) A(A) C(C) E(E) E(E) A(A) B(B) D(D) B(C) E(C) E(E) C(B) B(B) E(E) B(B) B(C) C(C) B(B) B(B) C(C) C(C) E(E) B(B) C(C) C(C) B(B) C(C) D(D) C(C) B(B) E(E) C(C) B(B) C(C) B(B) B(B) B(B) B(B) C(C) E(E) B(B) E(E)
C(C)
B(C) C(C) A(A) A(A) B(B) D(D) A(A) D(D) D(E) B(B) B(B) A(A) A(A) A(A) C(C) B(B)
B. Regional Network Speeds and Delay LEGEND: LOS 2006 (2026)
October 2008 - 19 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Travel speed and delay estimates have been developed for the Regional Highway Network, identifying areas of significant delay. A drive thru method was used along each segment of the Regional Network to acquire representative speeds, time of travel and delay. A constant speed, equivalent to the posted speed limits, was maintained where conflicts did not exist. For all runs, the weather was mostly sunny and the road surfaces were dry.
As shown in the following table, the average drive time from Chenango Bridge to Utica along NY-12 is approximately 1 hour and 49 minutes. Each of the alternative Regional Network routes includes longer travel times, as summarized in the table below:
Total Segments Traveled Travel Difference Route (#’s correspond to the map on the following page) Time (h:m:s) (h:m:s) NYS Route 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 1:49:39 0:00:00 I-88 to NYS Route 8 14 15 6 1:51:35 0:01:56 I-81 to I-481 to I-90 13 7 8 1:53:23 0:03:44 NYS Route 12 to NYS Route 12B to NYS Route 12 1 2 3 4 10 9/11 1:56:23 0:06:44 NYS Route 12 to NYS Route 23 to NYS Route 8 to NYS Route 12 1 2 3 12 15 6 1:55:35 0:05:56 I-81 to US Route 20 to NYS Route 12 13 9 5 6 2:06:08 0:16:29
The following map shows the network segments:
October 2008 - 20 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
6 8 7 11
9 34 5
10
15 31 4
26 13 3 12 2 17
15
8 1
5
14
1 NYS ROUTE 12 REGIONAL NETWORK SEGMENTS xx Network Segment x OD Node
October 2008 - 21 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
The following tables summarize the travel time data for each segment. For each segment, at least three trips were made in order to incorporate potential delays during the a.m. peak, noon and/or weekend peak, and p.m. peak.
Segment 1 : NYS Route 12 (from US Route 11 to NYS Route 206)
* Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 1 45 mph 14.2 17:35 48 mph * General Posted Speed (may vary in municipal jurisdictions)
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Turning traffic onto side roads without designated turning lanes • Heavy vehicles entering corridor • Traffic signals • School bus traffic • Reduced speed limits in Villages and Hamlets
Segment 2 : NYS Route 12 (from NYS Route 206 to the City of Norwich)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 2 55 mph 20.2 25:17 47 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Traffic signals • School bus traffic • Reduced speed limits in Villages and Hamlets
Segment 3 : NYS Route 12 (City of Norwich)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 3 30 mph 1.8 5:37 19 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Heavy turning movements • Urban character (and reduced speed limits) • Traffic signals
October 2008 - 22 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
• School bus traffic • Pedestrians • Parking Movements
Segment 4 : NYS Route 12 (City of Norwich to NYS Route 12B)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 4 30-55 mph 11.5 15:13 45 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Turning movements • Heavy Vehicles • Reduced speed limits in Villages and Hamlets
Segment 5 : NYS Route 12 (NYS Route 12B to NYS Route 5)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 5 55 mph 31.4 38:20 49 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Turning movements • Heavy Vehicles • Roadway Geometry • Reduced speed limits in Villages and Hamlets
Segment 6 : NYS Route 12 (NYS Route 5 to I-90)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 6 35-55 mph 5.4 7:37 42 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Turning movements • Urban character (and reduced speed limits) • Traffic signals • School bus traffic
October 2008 - 23 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Segment 7 : I-481 (I-81 to I-90)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 7 65 mph 9.4 8:47 64 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Merging movements / Interchanges
Segment 8 : I-90 (Utica to I-481)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 8 65 mph 43.8 42:10 62 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Merging movements / Interchanges • Heavy Truck volumes
Segment 9 : US Route 20 (NYS Route 8 to I-81)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 9 55 mph 40.2 46:45 52 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Turning movements • Heavy Vehicles • Roadway Geometry • Reduced speed limits in Villages and Hamlets
October 2008 - 24 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Segment 10 : NYS Route 12B (NYS Route 12 to NYS Route 5)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 10 45 mph 35.4 45:04 47 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Heavy Vehicles • Roadway Geometry
Segment 11 : NYS Route 12B (NYS Route 12 to US Route 20)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 11 45 mph 17.2 21:54 47 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Turning movements • Heavy Vehicles • Roadway Geometry
Segment 12 : NYS Route 23 (NYS Route 12 to NYS Route 8)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 12 45 mph 8.3 11:15 44 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Heavy Vehicles • Roadway Geometry
October 2008 - 25 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Segment 13 : I-81 (I-88 to I-90)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 13 65 mph 74.0 70:10 63 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Heavy Vehicles • Vertical Grades • Merging Movements / Interchanges
Segment 14 : I-88 (I-81 to NYS Route 8)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 14 55 mph 30.0 31:00 58 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Heavy Vehicles
Segment 15 : US Route 20 (NYS Route 8 to I-81)
Posted Length Travel Time Avg. Speed Segment Speed (miles) (minutes: seconds) (mph) 15 45 mph 58.2 72:58 48 mph
Factors that increase delay and congestion for this segment include:
• Turning movements • Heavy Vehicles • Roadway Geometry
2.5 Phase 1 Report
See Appendix A for the Phase I Report and Status of Phase I Recommendations
October 2008 - 26 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
2.6 Endangered and Threatened Species Inquiry
Contacts have been made to determine the presence of specific endangered and threatened species and the availability of potentially suitable habitat within/or along the NYS Route 12 corridor. The information obtained has been added to the electronic GIS data set, and maps are included in Appendix B.
2.7 Origin-Destination Analysis
A volumetric method to estimate the existing NYS Route 12 travel demands was performed for this study, in order to derive the potential economic impacts from different alternatives. For each progressed alternative, capacities and relative connectivity of the NYS Route 12 network, changes in vehicle hours traveled (VHT) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under different scenarios was estimated. As further explained in Section 5.3, VHT and VMT were calculated (based in part on the OD matrix) for each alternative individually, and also under differing scenarios including combinations of alternatives.
A sketch traffic estimation model was developed for the Origin Destination Matrix. This technique identifies the key sources of travel demand based on patterns in observed traffic counts. Traffic counts for NYS Route 12 and the Regional Network were used to identify those areas expected to produce and attract corridor traffic as reflected in the counts. These findings have been checked against census block level data to verify major sources of traffic affecting the NYS Route 12 system. The result will be a set of trip productions and attractions for traffic using NYS Route 12 and its supporting roadways.
As detailed in Section 5.3, these trips have been re-assigned based on the selected alternatives.
The Origin-Destination (OD) Matrix along the NYS Route 12 corridor utilizes the following nodes for reference:
October 2008 - 27 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
OD MATRIX NODES Node # Node Name Side Node # Node Name Side 1 NYS Route 12 Binghamton 18 NBT Bank East 2 NYS Route 12A East 19 Hail Street East 3 CR 96 East 20 East Main East 4 CR 128 West 21 West Main West 5 NYS Route 79 West 22 County Bldg. West 6 CR 1 West 23 Hospital East 7 CR 2 West 24 NYS Route 23 West 8 Raymond Corp East 25 NYS Route 23 East 9 NYS Route 206 West 26 NYS Route 320 East NYS Route 10 206/41 East 27 CR 23 West 11 NYS Route 41 West 28 CR 32 East 12 CR 32 East 29 NYS Route 80 West 13 CR 3 West 30 NYS Route 80 East 14 NYS Route 220 West 31 NYS Route 12B West Sherburne 15 NYS Route 220 East 32 Schools East 16 CR 4 West 33 CR 24 East Mad Co. 17 CR 32B East 34 NYS Route 12 Line
The following chart summarizes the baseline volumetric matrix:
(Refer to Section 5.3 for detailed Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle- Hours-Traveled (VHT) calculations)
October 2008 - 28 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
OD MATRIX TRAFFIC VOLUMES
October 2008 - 29 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
October 2008 - 30 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
3.1 Public Meeting Schedule & Locations
Through a series of Public Involvement activates, the study has been developed based on input gathered from private citizens, elected officials, affected agencies, the media, and interested stakeholders. Meeting comments were used to identify problems, local goals, project objectives, and to propose potential alternatives.
Due to the length of the study area, an initial round of Public Informational Meetings were held at dispersed locations along the NYS Route 12 corridor to provide the opportunity for public comment. The initial meeting dates and locations are as follows:
o September 17, 2007: Town Of Chenango Offices o September 20, 2007: Community Center, Town Of Hartford o September 25, 2007: Gibson Elementary School, City Of Norwich
A final meeting will be held to review and discuss projects recommended for further development. The final meeting is scheduled for Fall 2008.
The following comments were frequently received at several of the Public Meetings:
Will the high priority being placed on the NYS Route 12 corridor take funds away from work in other corridors?
NYS Route 12 is a high priority, but there are others as well. Keep in mind that none of the Phase II alternatives are currently funded.
Will improvements to NYS Route 8 also be considered?
Yes, the Phase II study is also considering the NYS Route 8 corridor, as it serves in a parallel capacity to NYS Route 12.
Will the potential 4-lane expressway be on a new alignment?
Yes – the concept presented is for a parallel new alignment.
Will the project include increased passing opportunities?
Yes – many of the concepts considered include increased passing opportunities, most notably the 3-lane and expressway options.
Will additional public involvement opportunities be provided?
October 2008 - 31 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Yes – an additional public information meeting(s) will take place following the finalization of the Phase II report.
Will the economic development be performed on a large scale?
Yes – the analysis will include regional factors, incorporating tax burdens, population trends, etc.
Will improvements to travel time be balanced against the potential for increased speeds?
Yes – public safety is the first priority in any transportation project. Speeds will be evaluated during the development of any alternative.
Other Comments: Did we look at traffic volumes and delays during the Phase I study? Yes Did we look at cost-benefits in Phase I to determine value of proposed improvements? Yes The 3-lane alternative (passing lanes) may be confusing to people, especially at night & by the elderly drivers. Need better signing. Acknowledged. There are areas of poor visibility along NYS Route 12 in the winter (blowing snow), especially from Waterville to Utica. Need windbreaks, trees, etc. Will be considered. Will the high priority being placed on the NYS Route 12 corridor take funds away from work in other corridors? NYS Route 12 is a high priority, but there are others as well. Reiterated that none of these Phase II alternatives are funded. Should we also consider improvements to NYS Route 8? The Phase II study is considering the NYS Route 8 corridor, but any improvements on NYS Route 8 would meet the project goals identified for NYS Route 12. Would any site-specific improvements be constructed such that they could be incorporated into future expressway considerations? Yes. Discussed traffic volumes throughout the NYS Route 12 corridor. NYSDOT Region 2 is currently looking at project studies and preliminary engineering for the NYS Route 12 arterial section in the Utica area. What will the future NYS Route 12 look like through the Town of New Hartford? Too early to tell at this planning stage. Will the potential 4-lane expressway be on a new alignment? Yes – the concept presented is for a parallel new alignment. There is a strong concern about drifting snow and white-outs in the Paris Hill area. There is concern regarding the safety of bicyclists, wide shoulders would be advantageous. There is a safety concern regarding left turning movements adjacent to passing lanes. A former NYSDOT plow operator noted that snow drifts heavily between Waterville and Paris, causing occasional closures of NYS Route 12. The study should consider extending the 4-lane section along NYS Route 8 as a potential alternate route. Improved signage is needed at intersections. Included in upcoming Region 2 construction project near Summit Road, Chuckery Road, and Tibbets Road. Drainage at the bottom of Paris Hill is a concern to the residents of the area. Need increased passing opportunities in the Tibbets Road area. Chuckery Corners has historical significance. Deer warning systems may be warrant consideration. Improved connections may spur economic development.
October 2008 - 32 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Request for additional Public Involvement when alternatives are finalized. Supports current concepts – continue development and analysis. Economic development need to be large scale – incorporating tax burdens, p[population trends, etc. : Yes – the analysis will include regional factors. Opposed to expressway – favors spot improvements Randy Gibbon summarized some major trucking needs along the corridor. Individual believes that the entire U.S. highway system is a conspiracy by the automakers and big oil to brain-wash the public against mass-transit. Believes that mass-transit options would be a better solution. A traveling salesman believes that time is money – would like to straighten curves, and add passing lanes. Also favors bicycle lanes. Individual is not opposed to expressway, thinks all options should be considered. Believes that mass-transit is not viable in such a rural corridor. Encouraged NYSDOT to study the Portland, Oregon model for rapid transit. Improvements to travel time should be carefully balanced against excessive speeds. Utilize the NYS Route 8 expressway as an alternate route
3.2 Website
The NYSDOT hosts a project website located at the following address:
https://nysdot.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/route12-corridor
The website developed during Phase I has been augmented to include the results of the Phase II study. The website serves to promote the NYS Route 12 improvements, and is hosted by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The website is designed to be a source of project information for residents, government leaders and other concerned citizens
3.3 Distributed Materials
Copies of public involvement brochures and other materials are included in Appendix C.
3.4 NYS Route 12 Task Force
Throughout the development of the corridor study, a task-force of local government representatives and stakeholders was consulted regarding project objectives, needs, and feasible alternatives. The following table contains a listing of Task Force membership, and details of Task force meetings and involvement is included in appendix C.
October 2008 - 33 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
NYS ROUTE 12 TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP Billings, Jim Sr. Vice President Barton & Loguidice, P.C. Brennan, Patrick Acting Commissioner Broome County Department of Public Works Carpenter, Maureen President Chenango County Chamber of Commerce Donoghue, David Deputy Commissioner Broome County Department of Public Works Eshbaugh, Pam Planning & Program Mgr. NYSDOT Region 9 (Binghamton) Fitzgerald, John Planning & Program Mgmt. NYSDOT, Region 9 (Binghamton) Gibbon, Randy Director Chenango County Department of Public Works Jones, Donna Director Chenango County Department of Planning Kent, John Commissioner Oneida County Planning Department Miller, Harry Program Manager HOCTS Miller, Jack Assistant Director Madison County Planning Department Morenus, Luke Managing Engineer Barton & Loguidice, P.C. Osika, Tom Planning & Program Mgmt. NYSDOT, Region 2 (Utica) Payne III, Robert Councilman Town of New Hartford Petkash, Rita Commissioner Broome County Department of Planning Restino, Mike Deputy Commissioner Broome County Department of Public Works Schraft, Willet Area Engineer Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Sen, Anjan Consultant Manager NYSDOT, Main Office Slivinski, Joe Superintendent Madison County Highway Department Maiurano, Joseph Mayor City of Norwich Tegza, Mike Consultant Mgt. Supervisor NYSDOT, Main Office Turna, Margaret Supervisor Town of Chenango Wisinski, Joe Deputy Superintendent Madison County Highway Department
October 2008 - 34 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
4. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
October 2008 - 35 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
4 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
4.1 Problem Identification
The overwhelming factor preventing NYS Route 12 from being the corridor of choice from Binghamton to Utica is delay, and the accompanying perceived driver frustration and lack of perceived corridor reliability. As shown in Section 2, travel times along NYS Route 12 between the two major urban areas are actually lower than the travel times along the Regional Network, and yet the interstate routes are much preferred by much of the traveling public.
There are several sources of delay along the NYS Route 12 corridor. Urbanized areas, seen in the Chenango Bridge and Norwich sections, introduce delay with heavy turning movements, pedestrian activity, on-street parking accommodations, and traffic signals. The suburban and rural areas of the corridor create delay by including agricultural vehicles, turning movements into driveways, and limited passing opportunities.
The results of discussions with daily commuters along the corridor affirm these problems. Most commuters, especially those traveling between the Greene and Sherburne areas, become frustrated with the bus, truck, plow, and Norwich delays – opting instead for an alternate route.
In addition, improving the number and functionality of access points to the adjacent I- 81 and I-88 systems may have a large impact on the volumes of traffic choosing the NYS Route 12 corridor. Especially on the southern end of the corridor, access to the Finger-Lakes and Southern Tier portions of New York State can prove difficult from the NYS Route 12 corridor. The transportation aspects of these impacts are further detailed in Section 5.2, and analyzed on an economic impact basis in Section 5.3.
October 2008 - 36 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
5. LONG RANGE ALTERNATIVES
October 2008 - 37 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
5. LONG RANGE ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Evaluation Criteria
All of the identified project alternatives were compared against the following criteria, resulting in the dismissal of some concepts, and the further analysis of others. Primary evaluation criteria were developed in conjunction with the Task-Force, and have been used as a basis of comparison while developing planning-level concepts.
The study team initially developed numerous broad-ranging conceptual ideas, ranging localized improvements to full access control interstate highway facilities. Through an initial screening process involving the input of the Task Force, key stakeholders, and the general public, the list of concepts was narrowed and refined. The initial screening process involved rating each alternative’s ability to satisfy the evaluation criteria listed below, in addition to an analysis of overall project feasibility.
Primary Project Criteria Safety Operating Speeds and Delay Constructability System Continuity / Access
Secondary Project Criteria Community Support Regional Economic Development Environmental Factors Right-of-Way Requirements Construction Costs
The following sections expand on those alternatives that were found worthy of further analysis from a transportation standpoint.
October 2008 - 38 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
5.2 Preliminary Alternatives Considered
1. I-88 Connector :
Existing I-88 Connection
Existing Conditions: As shown in the photo above, access to NYS Route 12 from I-88 is currently accomplished using NYS Route 12A. Impediments along this route include delays at the various signalized intersections. Truck turning movements can be heavy, with many commercial vehicles using NYS Route 12A as a connector to I-81 and points north. Passenger vehicle access to I-81 is also accomplished using NYS Route 12A and US Route 11, with a significant delay at the US Route 11/NYS Route 12 intersection.
Currently, vehicles traveling to I-81 north from I-88 can either use the I-88/I- 81 interchange at Exit 1, or use Exit 2 and travel the NYS Route 12A/NYS Route 12 corridor. The travel time for each method is approximately four (4) minutes, with the potential for additional delays through the NYS Route 12 signalized intersections. In the current configuration, there is no travel time benefit to using the NYS Route 12 corridor as an access point to I-81 northbound.
October 2008 - 39 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Future Conditions: Some benefit to commercial traffic may be gained by establishing a more direct connection between I-88 and NYS Route 12, potentially utilizing the existing Interstate footprint in the Port Crane Area.
Potential Connection Routes ( )
October 2008 - 40 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Travel Time / LOS Improvements: This route potentially reduces delays through the urbanized area, and draws traffic directly from the I-81/I-88 interchange to the south instead of utilizing the local street system. The average travel speed along this segment of NYS Route 12 is approximately 48 mph, which is generally acceptable. The prime benefit of an improved I-88 connection would be marginally enhanced commercial vehicle access to the NYS Route 12 corridor. The northbound connector route would save nearly 2 minutes in travel time versus the 6 minute trip time along the NY 12A / NY 12 route.
Potential impacts to the neighborhoods should be weighed against any potential savings in delay.
Estimated Construction Cost: A planning-level cost of construction is estimated at $18 million.
October 2008 - 41 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
2. I-81 Connector:
Existing Conditions: In lieu of a revamped I-88 interconnection in the Binghamton area, an improved connection to I-81 closer to Whitney Point may prove advantageous in drawing traffic from the western region to the NY-12 corridor. There are currently no routes between Chenango Bridge to the south, and US Route 20 to the north, that serve the NYS Route 12 corridor without undue delays and poor Levels-of-Service. Traffic wishing to access NYS Route 12 from the Finger-Lakes region must either travel along numerous geometrically insufficient county and local roads, or migrate a significant distance to the south to access the Interstate connection.
Future Conditions: An arterial-type connection to I-81 would allow commercial traffic to access the corridor while avoiding potential congestion in the urbanized areas of Chenango and Binghamton. This may also open commercial lanes between the NYS Route 12 corridor and populated areas near Ithaca, Elmira, Corning, and points west
October 2008 - 42 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Travel Time / LOS Improvements: An improved I-81 connection to the southern portion of the NYS Route 12 corridor may reduce the travel time between NY Route 12 and Interstate 81 by as much as eight (8) minutes, in comparison to the 20 minute trip time traveling NYS Route CR 79 though the Towns of Whitney Point and Itaska, offering a potential improvement in accessibility. Properly designed, an arterial-type connector could easily function with a LOS of “C” or better.
Estimated Construction Cost: A planning-level cost of construction is estimated at $14 million.
3. NYS Route 8 Connector:
Existing Conditions: The parallel routes of NYS Route 12 and NYS Route 8 are currently connected near the City of Norwich by NYS Route 23 and the combination of NYS Routes 320 and 29. The NYS Route 320/29 combination conveys the National Highway System designation from NYS Route 12 to the south and NYS Route 8 to the north.
Future Conditions: Improving the connection between the City of Norwich and the parallel NYS Route 8 corridor may improve travel times and take advantage of the existing expressway sections near New Hartford.
October 2008 - 43 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Travel Time / LOS Improvements: Off-peak travel times would not be reduced to a great extent, with the greater gain being based on the improved reliability of the connection. Improved sections, with the potential for wide shoulders and accommodations for turning vehicles, would improve most of the major sources of delay. Improved connections may benefit both of these parallel routes.
Estimated Construction Cost: A planning-level cost of construction is estimated at $13 million for each route.
4. Hamilton Connector:
Existing Conditions: The Village of Hamilton and university areas are currently connected to NYS Route 12 by NYS Route 12B, which runs is a nearly north-south orientation. Access to the village from the eastern and northern portions of NYS Route 12 is limited, relying mainly on local roads.
Future Conditions:
October 2008 - 44 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Improving the connection between the Village of Hamilton and the northern portions of the NYS-12 corridor may improve travel times and enhance accessibility to the University areas.
Travel Time / LOS Improvements: Approximately 4 minutes of travel time would be saved with an arterial or connector-type facility serving the village area, as compared to the approximately 28 minute trip between Hamilton and Stockwell along the existing roadways. Level of service would also be improved, since the existing local roads do not appear to be designed to current standards.
Estimated Construction Cost: A planning-level cost of construction is estimated at $29 million.
5. Norwich Alternate Route (CR-32)
CR 32B
October 2008 - 45 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Existing Conditions: One of the most prominent sources of delay in the corridor is the urban section within the City of Norwich. With an existing LOS “E”, and an average travel speed of 19 mph, travel through the urbanized portion of Norwich is a bane to both commercial vehicles and commuter travelers. It may prove advantageous to consider an alternate commercial through route which by- passes the major area of delay. The most probable option would bypass Norwich to the east, perhaps following CR 32B and CR 32, returning at a point north of North Norwich.
Future Conditions: Considerable public input should be solicited when considering the final design of such a bypass, since a reduction in traffic may impact local businesses. Best interests may be served by designating the bypass as a “Truck Route” only, in an attempt to preserve non-truck volumes within the central business district. Removing the through commercial vehicles and investigating potential parking improvements in the downtown area may provide significant reductions in delay, while also benefiting the pedestrian accommodations in the urban area.
In existing conditions, of the 12% of trucks that make up the traffic approaching Norwich, approximately half (6% of traffic) utilize the CR-32 corridor. Signing CR-32 as a designated truck route would place nearly all of the trucks on CR-32, with the exception of local deliveries.
Travel Time / LOS Improvements: Removing large vehicles and conflicting turning movements may improve the existing delay, allowing passenger vehicles to travel at or near the posted speed limits. A future LOS approaching “C” would not be unreasonable with the proper implementation. Although the potential CR 32 alternate route and the NYS Route 12 route are approximately the same length, congestion may be relieved during the peak business hours by removing the large vehicles
October 2008 - 46 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
from the downtown district. It should also be noted that portions of CR 32 and CR 32B have been recently reconstructed.
Numerous vehicle runs along both NYS Route 12 and the potential CR 32/CR 32B truck route were timed to determine possible savings. On average, the CR 32 route saved 1 to 2 minutes during non-peak hours, and saved 3 to 5 minutes during peak times. The savings were increased due to the large amount of bus and truck traffic through downtown Norwich during peak hours.
Estimated Construction Cost: A planning-level cost of construction is estimated at $14 million. 6. Norwich Bypass-West (New)
For comparative purposes to the Norwich Alternate Route, a new bypass to the west of Norwich was also analyzed. It offers similar levels of improvements to delay and travel time, as discussed with Alternative 5.
Estimated Construction Cost: A planning-level cost of construction is estimated at $24 million.
October 2008 - 47 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
7. Sherburne Bypass (New)
Existing Conditions: Similar to the conditions with in the City of Norwich, some sources of delay exist within the Village of Sherburne. Travel through the urbanized portion of Sherburne can be problematic at peak times, with school bus and parking delays inconveniencing the through traveler. It may prove advantageous to consider a by-pass around the east side of the Village.
Future Conditions: As with any bypass, considerable public input should be solicited when considering the final design and potential alignment, since a reduction in traffic may impact local businesses.
A bypass to the east would reduce the overall miles traveled, since the bypass is slightly shorter in length than the current NY-12 alignment.
October 2008 - 48 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Travel Time / LOS Improvements: The potential Sherburne bypass may improve travel times by as much as 5 minutes, compared to the route through downtown Sherburne, which sometimes takes as much as 8 minutes, due to delays; as further detailed in Section 5.3.
Estimated Construction Cost: A planning-level cost of construction is estimated at $18 million.
8. Grade Separated Interchanges:
The following locations for grade-separated interchanges were analyzed:
• NYS Route 79 • NYS Route 80 • NYS Route 206 • CR 88 • NYS Route 41 • CR 74 • NYS Route 220 • US Route 20
Although in theory grade-separated interchanges can generate significant reductions in travel delays, they do not appear to be fully advantageous when analyzing the corridor on a Regional Network level. For the NY-12 corridor, each will reduce delay by a few seconds, making the anticipated costs and accessibility impacts too large to overcome.
Estimated Construction Cost: A planning-level cost of construction for all of these locations is estimated at $43 million.
October 2008 - 49 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
9. 3-Lane Segments:
In rural sections of the corridor, left turning movements and truck climbing speeds become the major causes of delay. In these areas, a 3-lane highway with Dedicated Passing Lanes may prove beneficial. Sometimes called a “2- lane Expressway”, this option would include frequent passing zones, along with the potential for improved driveway access. Frontage roads or shared entrances may be required to provide local access to individual properties.
The provision of periodic, reliable passing lanes allow motorists increased opportunities to safely and easily pass slower vehicles, improving traffic flow at a much lower cost than a traditional expansion to four lanes.
There are three critical elements to the design of this type of facility: passing lane length and spacing, lane and shoulder width requirements, and signing and marking strategies.
Passing Lane Length and Spacing The selection of an appropriate passing lane length and the spacing between passing lane segments are critical to the effect of the passing lane on travel delay. If the passing lane is too short, platoons are not effectively dispersed. If the lane is too long, efficiency is lost.
October 2008 - 50 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Passing lanes should be located to best fit existing terrain. Uphill grades are preferred sites over downhill grades. Passing lanes on significant uphill grades should extend beyond the crest of the hill. Passing lane sections should be placed to avoid major intersections.
Lane and Shoulder Width Safety on highways is usually enhanced by the provision of wider lanes and shoulders that provide greater recovery room for errant drivers. Similarly, the provision of passing lanes also enhances safety through the accommodation of passing maneuvers that reduce platoon sizes and reduce the number of unsafe passes. Although conflicts do not always arise, providing a passing lane sometimes necessitates the temporary reduction of the shoulder and, occasionally, the lane width. Lane widths typically recommended are either 12 ft or widths that matched adjacent roadway sections, while shoulder width recommendations ranged from “minimum” values of 4 to 6 ft to “desirable” values that matched adjacent roadway sections. .
Several items should be considered in determining the shoulder width for a passing lane section. The addition or widening of a shoulder greatly improves safety—shoulder widening can reduce related accidents by up to approximately 50 percent with the addition of an 8-ft shoulder.
Therefore, it follows that the presence of a shoulder in a passing lane section increases the overall safety of the passing lane. The presence of a shoulder also increases the driver’s comfort level. Additionally, driver expectancy may be violated when traveling from a two-lane section with a wide shoulder to a three-lane section with no shoulder or with a very narrow shoulder. However, passing lane sections are relatively short, and few vehicles are likely to stop in these sections. If vehicles do have to stop for an emergency, extra width for going around the vehicle is provided by the width of the additional lane.
Other user groups should also be considered in the provision of shoulders in passing lane sections. Pedestrians and bicyclists may also use the roadways with passing lane sections; if so, they may travel on the shoulder. Rumble strip installation also affects these users; if a rumble strip is placed in the center of the shoulder; usable space for pedestrians and bicyclists is limited.
Signing and Marking By understanding what drivers perceive to be the purpose and meaning of signs and markings, designers can more effectively convey the intended use of the roadway.
October 2008 - 51 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
• Regulatory signs to tell the driver to stay in the right lane unless passing
• Informational signs providing the distance to the next passing lane
• Pavement markings allowing or prohibiting passing, and Entrance pavement markings encouraging staying in the right lane
Advance signing should be provided regarding the upcoming passing lane so that drivers are aware of its presence. The preferred sign (and associated sign placement) is that the passing lane is upcoming in two miles. This sign will permit drivers to delay passing maneuvers until they can be made more comfortably, although passing may still be permitted prior to the passing lane section. A sign should be provided near the end of each passing lane section stating that in “X” distance another passing lane will be provided.
This advance signing will inform the driver of the repetitive nature of the passing lane design, allowing the driver to understand the purpose and nature of the roadway’s characteristics. A dashed white line in the transition area extending from near the highway centerline to the beginning of the white dashed line separating the passing lane from the right lane should be provided.
There are numerous rural areas that may benefit from this alternative, including the high-delay, hilly areas near Oxford, Greene, Sherburne, and Sangerfield. An adapted version of the 3-Lane section may also be utilized in municipal areas, by implementing a logical restricted-access policy in which commercial driveways are shared, to the extent possible.
October 2008 - 52 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Potential 3-Lane Location
Potential areas for consideration of 3-Lane sections along NYS Route 12 may include:
o NYS Route 12A to Brotzman Road (approx. 1.6 miles) o RM 97 to RM 98 (Willette Park Road to Depot Street) o RM 103 to RM 106 (McLean Lane to South Chenango Street Extension – Greene, NY) o RM 108 to RM 109 (CR 3A to Hogsback Road) o RM 111 to RM 112 (Coutermarsh Road to CR 32C / Bridge Street) o RM 115 to RM 119 (Oxford Hill Road to CR 3 – Oxford, NY) o RM 140 to RM 142 (CR 32 to Tracy Road – beginning in North Norwich, NY) o RM 148 to RM 150 (Howard Road to Knapp Road – beginning near Sherburne High School) o RM 157 to RM 162 (Green Road to Loomis Road – Hubbardsville / Stockwell, NY)
Savings & Benefits : Delay savings on each segment would vary based on local conditions. Traffic volumes, passing opportunities, truck percentages, and existing terrain will all help to define any potential savings. As a rule of thumb, each mile of properly constructed 3-Lane section may save several seconds of delay to the commuter motorist.
Estimated Construction Cost: A planning-level cost of construction for all sections is estimated at $69 million.
October 2008 - 53 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
10. Limited Access Expressway on New Alignment:
Although long-term and incremental in nature, the conversion of NYS Route 12 to a limited access expressway may warrant consideration. With significant portions of NYS Route 12 designated as part of the National Highway System, it serves a role in both strategic defense and mass public travel.
It is estimated that a limited access expressway may reduce travel time between Binghamton and Utica by approximately 30 minutes (compared to the I-81/I-90 route), easily becoming the preferred route between the cities.
Route Improvement Concept The expressway design standard is characterized by full access control; two (or more) travel lanes in each direction; and posted speeds of 55 miles per hour in urban areas and 65 miles per hour in rural areas. The proposed highway improvement includes approximately 84 miles of expressway development.
Transportation Impacts In similar projects, the proposed improvements were projected to lead to a significant increase in Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) throughout the study area, compared to the “no build” forecast that assumes no changes to existing corridor. The average free-flow speed along NYS Route 12 from Binghamton to Utica would increase to approximately 62 miles per hour, compared with approximately 46 miles per hour in the no-build forecast.
October 2008 - 54 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Average daily traffic (ADT) would be expected to increase significantly along most segments of NYS Route 12. Average daily trips would decrease on many of the parallel north-south routes, which would be characterized by slower speeds and longer driving times than NYS Route 12. Due to the increase in average free-flow speeds along NYS Route 12, the total travel time along the corridor between Binghamton and Utica would decrease more than 28 minutes. Adjusting for the elimination of signalization, the total decrease in travel time may be closer to 35 minutes along the entire corridor.
User Benefits The user benefits attributable to the NY-12 corridor improvement fall into three categories:
a. Travel time savings reflect the dollar value of the reduction in vehicle hours of traffic (VHT) that is associated with the project.
b. Safety cost savings reflect the projected reduction in the number of accidents that would occur as a result of the improvement in the functional class of the facility, as seen in the reduction in congestion and the level of entering and exiting traffic.
c. Vehicle operating cost changes reflect changes in average operating speed. With the decrease in congestion and signalization associated with the highway improvement, autos and trucks will be operating at speeds higher than their optimal speed for maximizing efficiency and fuel economy.
Estimated Construction Cost: A planning-level cost of construction for all sections is estimated at $752 million.
October 2008 - 55 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
11. Other Municipal By-Passes
• New Berlin • Chenango Forks • Oxford • Sangerfield
Other than the previously discussed potential routes around Norwich and Sherburne, bypasses around other population centers along the NYS Route 12 corridor do not appear to be advantageous from a traffic delay standpoint.
October 2008 - 56 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
5.3 Economic Analysis
This section provides an overview of the relative importance of transport investments compared to non-highway related economic factors, which is the basis for conducting an economic feasibility analysis of highway improvements.
5.3.1 Overview Economically, the region has not kept up with national and state trends. Since 1980, population has fallen steadily in the overall four-county core study area. While overall employment grew, the growth reflected a fundamental national shift in which more people took on second jobs and additional family members entered the work force. This study report evaluates the regional economy, the highway system and traffic flows, and how the proposed improvement alternatives may affect the region’s economy.
5.3.2 Study Region and Issues The study region centers on the four counties through which the Route 12 corridor runs between Binghamton and Utica. These include Broome, Chenango, Madison and Oneida. Additionally, the proximity and interstate connectivity of Syracuse also warrant evaluation and comparison.
Study Region – Since the NYS Route 12 study area is affected by the Syracuse economy and its traffic, Onondaga County is included in the economic evaluation of study area population and employment trends. Additionally, the regional counties of Cortland (between Broome and Onondaga) and Herkimer (slightly east of Utica) are also evaluated since their economies may well be affected by any notable NYS Route 12 improvements. Further, the larger study area population and employment trends are compared to those of the other upstate Metropolitan Statistical Area’s (MSAs), the overall state, and more specifically, the Upstate region. Specifically, the upstate economy of New York State (north of Sullivan-Ulster-Dutchess Counties) is a significantly different environ and economy compared to the New York City metropolitan area.
Traffic Issues – Delay, actual and perceived, is the fundamental factor preventing NYS Route 12 from attracting Binghamton to Utica traffic. As discussed in Section 2, travel times along NYS Route 12 between the two major urban areas are actually lower than the travel times along the Regional Network, and yet the interstate routes are much preferred by much of the traveling public. This is due to delay perceptions and uncertainty associated with the previously documented delays associated with Norwich traffic, turning vehicles, and slow traffic. User perceptions associated with a higher level of comfort due to the wider shoulders along the interstate corridor are also a factor. Mitigation of such delays would, arguably, improve driver perceptions and enable the NYS Route 12 corridor to accommodate a greater share of the region’s overall traffic volume as well as make the region more attractive to industry.
Delay Sources and Locations – There are several sources of delay along the NYS Route 12 corridor. Small urbanized areas, seen in the Chenango Bridge and Norwich sections, introduce delay with heavy turning movements, pedestrian activity, on-
October 2008 - 57 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
street parking accommodations, and traffic signals. The suburban and rural areas of the corridor create delay by including agricultural vehicles, turning movements into driveways, and limited passing opportunities.
Discussions with daily corridor commuters reaffirm this central issue. Most commuters, especially those traveling between the Greene and Sherburne areas, become frustrated with the bus, truck, farm vehicle, plow, and Norwich delays – opting instead for an alternate route.
Economic Development – Population and employment growth along the four-county corridor has struggled over the past twenty years, despite the increased traffic growth. At issue is whether or not the traffic issues constrain the study area’s growth. This study breaks down the population changes in the region by county and compares them to the State of New York, the Upstate regions.
5.3.3 Purpose and Objectives The purpose of the economic analysis is to understand the nature and magnitude of the proposed improvement alternatives on the region’s overall economy. The primary objectives are to evaluate the effect of the improvement alternatives: (1) transportation efficiency, and (2) the resulting economic development. Transportation efficiency reflects the monetary changes in vehicle operating costs, travel times and accidents. Also, the economic development impacts demonstrate how the resulting market access improvements affect employment, income and output.
5.3.4 Transport Infrastructure & Economic Development As regional business markets become more national and even global in scale, highways are increasingly seen as catalysts for local economic development. The ability of highways to retain and attract new business (and the associated jobs) is often used to justify public investment. However, the rationale that one can stimulate regional economic development by only investing in highway infrastructure is misleading because it overlooks a basic economic principle, as discussed below.
5.3.5 Rising Demand for Goods and Services While transportation is essential in the operation of a market economy, highway infrastructure does not directly stimulate local development, nor does local development directly stimulate highway investment. Rather, both are stimulated by regional increases in demand for goods and services. Essentially, rising demand for goods and services stimulates economic development and highway infrastructure investment. Therefore, highway investment must be seen as a facilitator of growth, not the origin of growth. The inter-dependent relationships between goods and services, economic development, and highway development are illustrated in Exhibit 5.3.1-1.
October 2008 - 58 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.1-1 Highways and Economic Development NYS Route 12 Corridor Study Rising Demand for Goods & Services
Economic Highway Development Development
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates
The ability of a region to create economic growth (i.e., stimulate demand for goods and services) is based on three components: population and employment growth, capital investment, and technological progress. 1 These components are discussed below.
Population and Employment Growth – Increases in the population and labor force lead to economic development and growth. Population growth increases demand for goods and services, which further stimulates economic expansion and capital investments in industrial, economic, and social infrastructure. Labor force changes increase manpower availability to existing businesses and attract new commercial ventures. A large, productive labor force provides a base to sustain consumption of goods and services.
Capital Investment – Expanded regional output is also created by capital investments in manufacturing facilities, machinery, equipment, and materials. These productive investments are supplemented by investments in social and economic infrastructure, transportation, electricity, water, sanitation, and communications, etc., all of which facilitate and integrate economic activity. Similarly, investment in human resources, such as education and infrastructure, improve the quality and productivity of labor resources.
Technological Progress – New and improved methods of accomplishing traditional tasks such as growing crops, manufacturing products, etc., further stimulate demand for goods and services. The introduction of innovative techniques and processes results in higher total regional output and productivity. These output and productivity improvements further stimulate the consumption of goods and services.
5.3.6 Quantifiable Variables The three economic growth components described above provide a framework to assess the future role of highways in their regional economies. However, the ability to identify, collect, and quantify data for these three components ranges from straightforward and easy, to indirect and difficult.
Quantification of capital investment and technological progress is typically elusive and circumspect, especially when the study region spans various counties and
1 Michael P. Todaro, “Economic Development” (Longman, White Plains, NY, 1994) pp. 100-105.
October 2008 - 59 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
regions. Conversely, historical population and employment data at the county level are easily obtainable. Breakdown of individual sector employment change and comparison to a larger reference region enables one to identify how study area sectors compare.
5.3.7 Transportation Efficiency Benefits The effects of transportation improvements on travel times and market access are assessed for the various proposed corridor improvements. To do so usually begins with the development and use of a full travel demand model. While a notable number of vehicle count traffic data was available, a detailed study area travel demand model was not available. For this reason, a sketch level traffic model using a Origin-Destination Matrix Estimator 2 (ODME) matrix was developed to provide a basis for understanding the general effects of the proposed corridor improvements. This model provides a tool for understanding the order of magnitude effect of corridor improvements, and for measuring the relative differences between the alternatives. Based on these travel demand and industry sectoral analysis, the associated transportation efficiency benefits associated with travel time and speed changes are quantified and compared to the costs of constructing the new facilities and operating/maintaining them over a 20-year period. Secondly, the associated economic impacts are also compared to these construction and O&M costs, thus providing an economic development perspective in addition to the transportation efficiency perspective. In addition to the 20-year study period typical of transportation planning activities, the economic analyses for this study have also been extrapolated to include a 30-year period, in order to better understand long- term trends.
2 See Section 3.1
October 2008 - 60 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
5.3.8 Study Area Economy The study area economy is measured from both a macro and micro perspective. The macro perspective evaluates the total population and employment levels on a county level. In doing so, employment is broken down by major sectors. The micro perspective uses the Business Location Analysis Tool (BLAT) to identify individual major business employer location and sector.
The following regional overview evaluates population and employment for the study corridor and the Upstate region.
5.3.9 Population The NYS Route 12 study area population trends are broken-down by county and compared to those of New York State and other comparable upstate MSAs. Doing so provides context regarding traffic volumes growth along the NYS Route 12 corridor despite declining Study area population.
Study Area Counties – The core NYS Route 12 study area population totaled 552,700 in 2007, which includes Broome, Chenango, Madison and Oneida Counties. Between the years 1980 and 2000, population declined 4.4%, as seen in Exhibit 5.3.2-1. This overall decline reflects that of the metropolitan areas of Broome County (Binghamton) and Oneida (Utica-Rome). Since 2000, the population continued to decline, albeit at a slower rate (0.7%). Conversely, population grew slightly in the rural internal Route 12 Corridor counties (e.g., Chenango and Madison).
Comparatively, population in the large, more urban Onondaga County (Syracuse) grew slightly between 1980 and 2000 (1.3%) and between 2000 and 2007 (0.1%), while population in neighboring Cortland County remained more-or-less constant and population in Herkimer County fell. To the west of the corridor, population in Otsego County also grew slightly. Combined, population in the eight county NYS Route 12 study area fell 2.6% between 1980 and 2000 and fell 0.4% between 2000 and 2007.
The decline in historical and forecasted population of the Core Study area over the 1980 to 2030 period is shown in Exhibit 5.3.2-2.
New York State – Conversely, New York State population grew 8.2% between 1980 and 2000 and 2.1% between 2000 and 2007. However, the rest of the Upstate (north of Sullivan-Ulster-Dutchess Counties) grew at a significantly slower rate of 2.2% between 1980 and 2000, and 0.4% between 2000 and 2007.
Other MSA’s – Population in both the Albany and Rochester MSAs grew at close to the State rate between 1980 and 2000 (7.1% and 6.7%, respectively). Since the year 2000, the Albany MSA grew faster (3.4%) than the State, while the Rochester MSA has stalled with no growth (0.0%).
October 2008 - 61 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.2-1 Population Trends Year Change Area 1980- 2000- 2007- 1980 1990 2000 2007 2030 2000 2007 2030 New York State 17,566,400 18,020,800 19,000,100 19,407,400 21,195,900 8.2% 2.1% 9.2% New York Upstate 1 6,613,200 6,720,900 6,761,800 6,788,900 7,145,800 2.2% 0.4% 5.3% Syr-Rt.12 Study Area Core Study Area Broome 213,900 212,300 200,300 196,500 196,400 -6.4% -1.9% -0.1% Chenango 49,400 51,800 51,400 51,900 53,500 4.0% 1.0% 3.1% Madison 65,300 69,300 69,500 70,500 76,400 6.4% 1.4% 8.4% Oneida 253,700 251,200 235,300 233,800 225,700 -7.3% -0.6% -3.5% Core Subtotal 582,300 584,600 556,500 552,700 552,000 -4.4% -0.7% -0.1% Cortland 48,900 49,100 48,600 48,600 49,900 -0.6% 0.0% 2.7% Herkimer 66,700 65,900 64,400 63,400 63,300 -3.4% -1.6% -0.2% Onondaga 463,900 469,900 458,400 457,800 470,300 -1.2% -0.1% 2.7% Otsego 59,100 60,500 61,700 62,900 69,400 4.4% 1.9% 10.3% 8-County Area Total 1,220,900 1,230,000 1,189,600 1,185,400 1,204,900 -2.6% -0.4% 1.6% Albany MSA 772,200 811,400 826,800 855,200 930,400 7.1% 3.4% 8.8% Rochester MSA 973,100 1,005,000 1,038,500 1,038,000 1,070,300 6.7% 0.0% 3.1% Source: Woods & Poole 1New York Upstate Region (North of Sullivan-Ulster-Dutchess Counties)
Exhibit 5.3.2-2 Population Trends – Core Study Area
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000 Oneida Madison Chenango 300,000 Broome
200,000
100,000
0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source: Woods & Poole
October 2008 - 62 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
AAPR Comparison – On an average annual percent rate (AAPR) basis, these growth rates indicate that growth in the core study area fell (-0.10%) between 2000 and 2007, as has population in the larger 8-county area (-0.05%). Through the year 2030, the annual growth rate is forecasted to continue declining, albeit marginally at 0.01%. Comparatively, the Albany MSA grew 0.48% on AAPR basis between 2000 and 2007 while the Rochester MSA has remained constant. As shown in Exhibit 5.3.2-3, Albany’s current growth surpasses that of the state (0.30%), and the Upstate (0.14%).
Exhibit 5.3.2-3 Population Growth by Region (AAPR) 0.6% 1980-2000 0.48% 2000-2007 2007-2030 0.39% 0.4% 0.38% 0.37% 0.34% 0.33% 0.30% 0.22% 0.2% 0.13% 0.11% 0.07% 0.06% Core 1 8-Co. 2 0.0% NY State NY Upstate -0.01% Albany MSA -0.01% -0.05% Rochester MSA -0.10% -0.13% -0.2%
-0.23%
-0.4% AAPR – Average Annual Percent Rate Percent Annual – Average AAPR
-0.6% 1Corridor: Includes Broome , Chenango , Madison and Oneida 28-Co. Region: Includes Core plus Cortland , Herkimer , Onondaga and Otsego
Additionally, the AAPR growth rates for the each of the four core area counties are shown over the three periods in Exhibit 5.3.-4. The notable point being that the two central, rural counties of Chenango and Madison are growing slightly versus the more urban counties (Broome and Oneida) at the NYS Route 12 termini that are declining in population terms.
Population Trend Summary – The mid-sized metropolitan areas of Binghamton and Utica are the endpoints of the central NYS Route 12 Study Area. Their population decline over the past quarter century reflects the region’s economic challenges. Conversely, the study area’s smaller, internal counties, Chenango and Madison, continue to grow, albeit at a slower rate than that of the State. Overall, the NYS Route 12 study area fell, while the neighboring Rochester and Albany MSAs grew.
October 2008 - 63 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.2-4 Population Growth by Region (AAPR)
0.6%
1980-2000 2000-2007 0.4% 2007-2030 0.35% 0.31%
0.20% 0.20% 0.2% 0.14% 0.13%
Broome 0.00% Oneida 0.0% Chenango Madison -0.09% -0.15% -0.2%
-0.27% -0.33% -0.4% -0.38%
AAPR – Average Annual Percent Rate Percent Annual – Average AAPR -0.6%
5.3.9 Employment The core study area “employment by-place-of-work” in 2007 totaled 315,200, and the larger study area inclusive of the neighboring counties totaled 710,300. Employment growth for both the core and overall study area lagged that of the entire State, the Upstate, as well as the comparative Albany and Rochester MSAs. This lag is true for both comparative periods (1980-2000, and 2000-2007), as well as the forecasted 2007-2030 period. Nonetheless, employment is growing for most all counties; the notable exceptions are Broome (2000-2007) and Herkimer (1980-2000 and 2000- 2007).
Employment growth exceeds that of population due to national trends in which: a greater share of the female population have entered the workforce; people are retiring later (and/or working part-time in retirement); and people are working second jobs. Nonetheless, the historical and forecasted employment trends in the core study area lack those of the State, the Upstate and the comparative regions.
October 2008 - 64 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.2-3 Employment Trends
Year Change Area 2000- 2007- 1980 1990 2000 2007 2030 1980-2000 2007 2030 New York State 8,622,500 9,817,400 10,455,400 10,953,200 13,073,900 21.3% 4.8% 19.4% New York Upstate 1 2,770,500 3,230,000 3,379,700 3,494,200 4,262,000 22.0% 3.4% 22.0% Syracuse-Rt.12 Study Area Study Area Counties Broome 111,700 124,500 122,200 120,700 150,300 9.4% -1.2% 24.5% Chenango 21,800 23,100 23,700 24,300 28,600 8.7% 2.5% 17.7% Madison 21,100 27,100 30,700 32,100 40,800 45.5% 4.6% 27.1% Oneida 116,100 133,000 134,600 138,100 169,800 15.9% 2.6% 23.0% Core Subtotal 270,700 307,700 311,200 315,200 389,500 15.0% 1.3% 23.6% Cortland 21,700 25,500 24,900 25,800 31,400 14.7% 3.6% 21.7% Herkimer 26,500 24,600 26,300 26,000 29,700 -0.8% -1.1% 14.2% Onondaga 250,800 305,800 303,900 311,600 375,800 21.2% 2.5% 20.6% Otsego 23,100 29,000 29,900 31,700 37,800 29.4% 6.0% 19.2% Syr-Rt.12 Area Total 592,800 692,600 696,200 710,300 864,200 17.4% 2.0% 21.7% Albany MSA 386,400 481,700 524,600 554,500 706,500 35.8% 5.7% 27.4% Rochester MSA 493,100 585,800 628,900 642,800 789,100 27.5% 2.2% 22.8% Source: Woods & Poole 1New York Upstate Region (North of Sullivan-Ulster-Dutchess Counties)
Exhibit 5.3.2-2 Employment Trends – Core Study Area
700,000 Oneida 600,000 Madison Chenango Broome 500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Employment is place of work (not residence)
October 2008 - 65 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
5.3.10 Corridor Businesses Most major study region employers are located in Utica and Binghamton and are well served by interstates. However, some major employers are located within the NYS Route 12 corridor and would most probably benefit from an improved roadway network. The location of major employers in the study is shown in Exhibit 5.3.2-4 with one very notable exception:
Note that Syracuse (Onondaga County) employers are excluded from the map since their relatively large size and number of firms would dwarf those shown. Nonetheless, the map illustrates the relative size and number of study area employers within the corridor versus those at the corridor’s urban endpoints.
The second key point illustrated by the map concerns connectivity. The existing east-west Interstates (I-88 and I-90) connect the Albany Region (and New England) to Syracuse and Binghamton, respectively, and westward. Conversely, the NYS Route 12 corridor does not connect major metropolitan areas. Rather, it connects Binghamton to the southern Adirondack Park, which does not have major tourism facilities. This lack of connectivity to external regions inhibits growth associated with increased transient (or through) traffic.
October 2008 - 66 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.2-4 Highway Dependent Major Employers – Core Study Area
October 2008 - 67 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
5.3.11 Corridor Transportation A sketch-level traffic model was used to help estimate the transportation efficiency benefits and the market access impacts associated with the various NYS Route 12 improvement alternatives. This model consisted of an Origin-Destination Matrix Estimator (ODME model) that estimate travel flows based on traffic counts and other data. The model provided a framework for understanding how the various improvements would affect traffic flows, speeds and variability. The following section outlines how the sketch model was developed, followed by a description of the alternatives analyzed from the economic perspective, and a summary of travel efficiency findings for each alternative.
5.3.12 Travel Demand Model Since no formal travel demand model (TDM) was available for the study region, a sketch-level traffic model was developed to understand how the proposed improvements would affect regional travel flows, and affect the regional economy. The sketch-level model provides a general indication of how traffic flow change and the relative attractiveness of various alternatives, and is a reasonable tool for comparing alternatives in this type of macro-scale study. The following describes the data sources, network and zone system used.
Data Sources – The following data sources were used and/or reviewed: • NYS Route 12 Corridor Study, Phase I Report – The base report provided study region road segment lengths, volumes, speeds and travel times.
• Highway Performance Management System (HPMS) – While traffic count data was available for some study interstate segments, truck counts for many other segments was not available. For this reason, HPMS data for New York State was used to estimate the percent trucks as a fraction of total traffic. 3
• The Transearch Freight movement database for the Continental 1 Corridor (C1C) acquired from Global Insight contains freight commodity movement data for 9 states on the Atlantic coast. 4 The report and findings were reviewed to see if any notable connectivity benefits could be identified through the proposed improvements.
• In addition, the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) was reviewed to ascertain if any additional insight could be gained regarding freight flows, especially those through the corridor that might benefit from any connectivity improvements. Network – The regional NYS Route 12 network outlined in previous sections of this report was used as a base for the network development. The network in bound by interstates I-88 to the south, I-81 to the west I-90 to the north, and by the parallel NYS Route 8 to the east. The sparse internal network includes US and State routes, and connects notable population centers.
3 FHWA 2006 model 4 Continental One Transportation Corridor Analysis, Economic Opportunity Analysis, Corridor Alignment and Investment Strategies, August 2007
October 2008 - 68 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Future Year Network – The year 2026 networks are built using the year 2006 network as a base.
• Base (No-Build) Network – An existing plus committed (E+C) network was obtained for the 2026 analysis. An existing plus committed network consists of the current road system with roadway improvements that are currently under construction or scheduled for construction in the near future. This network is used for the base (i.e., no-build) scenario.
• Build Network – The year 2026 E+C network is used as a base for the Build Network. Proposed roadway projects that are not scheduled for construction in the near future are added to the network. This existing plus committed plus improvements (E+C+I) network is used for the various build scenarios. Zone System – The zone system comprised 266 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) based on US County Census subdivisions, as shown in Exhibit 5.3.3-1.
Connectivity – A key point that affects the potential travel demand characteristics of the proposed corridor improvements is also shown on the map, the Adirondack Park. Highway development typically improves connectivity between economic regions. In doing so, the highway reduces the “economic distance”, i.e. the travel time, and increases the region’s market area. Often other, larger economic regions beyond the study region where the development/ improvements occur are also connected. However, in this study the Park is not well developed in the south. So, the connectivity benefits of the proposed corridor improvements are limited to those of the study region (i.e. the core study area).
Trip Table – The Origin Destination Matrix Estimation (ODME) method was used to estimate trips in the study region. The traffic network containing traffic counts at key location was used as an input to estimate the base year (2006) trip table.
Future Year Trip Table Development – This report presents traffic forecasts at key locations in the study region. These traffic forecasts were used as an input to the ODME procedure to estimate the forecast year (2026) trip table. This trip table is used to perform scenario testing in order to understand the effect of proposed improvements to roadway sections in the region. In addition, a year 2026 trip table was interpolated.
Trucks – Truck counts along interstate segments are presented in this report . Highway Performance Management System (HPMS) data for the State of New York was also used to calculate truck percentages based on functional classification for the rest of the roadway system. These percentages were used to estimate trucks as a fraction of total traffic from the model.
October 2008 - 69 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.3-1 Traffic Analysis Zones
October 2008 - 70 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Effectiveness Measures – The trip tables for the years 2006 and 2026 were assigned to the no-build and build networks. The build scenario was then compared to the no- build scenario to measure transportation efficiency (i.e., the change). Road improvements often divert traffic from existing roadway to a longer but faster path, resulting in lower vehicle-hours-traveled (VHT) than the no-build alternative. However, vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) may increase if the roadway improvements divert traffic to a longer, but faster route.
In the case of NYS Route 12, it was initially hypothesized that the roadway improvements may actually lead to both VHT and VMT savings. This hypothesis was based on the findings from the preliminary study that indicated that people were driving the mores circuitous route on I-90 and I-88 between Utica and Binghamton due to the perception that the more direct NYS Route 12 was too time consuming due to congestion in Norwich, slower traffic, etc. As discussed in Section 5.3.13, some of the studied alternatives have proven the VHT and VMT savings hypothesis to be marginally correct, while others do not demonstrate a measurable savings.
5.3.12 Highway Improvement Alternatives Section 5.2 identifies eleven basic improvement options (1. through 11.) ranging from minor connectors, passing lanes, etc. to a major new expressway. In addition several of these options include improvements at various route segments. This economic analysis builds upon these initial improvement options in the development of ten economic alternatives, as presented below along with costs in Exhibit 5.3.3-2. The central objective is to evaluate the potential transportation efficiency benefits associated with each alternative and to quantify the related monetary benefits (i.e., cost savings) and potential market access impacts.
Exhibit 5.3.3-2 Highway Improvement Alternatives and Capital Costs
Capital Costs (Millions Alternative 2008$) 1 I-88 Connector $18 2 I-81 Connector $14 3 NYS Route 8 Connector $13 4 Hamilton Connector $29 5 Norwich Alternate Route $14 (CR 32) 6 Norwich Bypass – West $24 (New) 7 Sherburne Bypass (New) $18 8 Grade Separated $43 Interchanges 9 3-Lane Segments $69 10 Limited-Access $752 Expressway on New Alignment
October 2008 - 71 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Given the high number of alternatives and the lack of a detailed traffic demand model, an initial review of the potential viability of each alternative was conducted. In doing so, three alternatives were clearly identified as having no potential economic feasibility. Specifically, these alternatives did not show any indication of generating sufficient cost savings (i.e., economic benefits) to warrant detailed traffic and economic analyses, as discussed below.
Limited-Access Expressway on New Alignment (Alternative 10) – Analysis of traffic volume and patterns quickly indicated that the order-of-magnitude of benefits associated with transport costs savings would not support a capital improvement project of roughly $752 million (combined with an additional $250,000 annual operation and maintenance cost. Specifically, an order of magnitude estimate of travel time savings suggests that the average annual time saving benefits would only approximate $16 million, as shown below in Exhibit 5.3.3-3.
Exhibit 5.3.3-3 New Expressway Travel Time Savings – Order of Magnitude Estimate
85 Corridor distance (miles) 25 Average trip length (miles) 29% Average percent of corridor traveled Hours saved by vehicle traveling the entire 0.82 corridor 0.24 Average hours saved per vehicle 10,000 Vehicles per day on corridor (AADT) 2,412 Total daily hours saved 300 Days per year 723,500 Total annual hours saved $22.89 Value per hour $16,560,000 Value of Annual Time Savings
Using an average corridor trip length of 25 miles, and applying a conservative 50- minute (0.82 hours) time savings for an entire corridor-length trip suggests that the average trip would save 14.4 minutes (i.e., 0.24 hours). Applying these savings to an estimated 10,000 AADT 5, 300 days per year (since weekend days are less busy than weekdays), and an average value per hour of approximately $23.00 (see Exhibit 4-1) indicates a total annual time savings benefit of $16.6 million. Over a 30-year analysis period, such time savings do not even begin to approach the project capital cost ($752 million), as shown in Exhibit 5.3.3-a. Further, vehicles using the corridor would travel at a higher speeds resulting in higher transport costs, which would notably dampen the time savings benefits.
The alignment of such an alternative could have a significant effect on costs, and on potential traffic volumes. Such assumptions could raise issues and controversy beyond the warranted effort. For these reasons, the 4-lane divided expressway analysis was not seen as even remotely feasible from an economic feasibility perspective, and a detailed economic analysis was not conducted for the expressway option.
5 AADT – Average Annual Daily Traffic
October 2008 - 72 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Grade-Separated Intersections (Alternative 8) – Construction cost estimates for each at-grade intersection total $5.4 million ($43.0 million for all eight). Comparison of traffic volumes and improvement costs quickly indicated that the grade-separated intersections also had no chance of economic viability. For this reason order-of- magnitude comparisons were done between potential benefits and costs.
Specifically, vehicle traffic along the NYS Route 12 corridor ranges from a high of 15,400 in Norwich to a low of 3,100 around US Route 20. Assuming that 10% of an average 10,000 daily vehicles using the corridor turn left at an interchange and an average delay of 20 seconds (which is high) suggests daily time savings of roughly 5.5 hours per day (20,000 seconds). Applying this to all nine interchanges and annualizing suggests a savings of approximately 15,000 hours. Given the average value per hour of nearly $23 suggests annual times savings benefits of only $343,400 for all nine interchanges, as shown in Exhibit 5.3.3-4. Over a 30-year analysis period, such time savings do not even begin to approach the project capital cost ($43 million). Further, vehicles using the corridor would travel at a higher speeds resulting in higher transport costs, which would notably dampen the time savings benefits. Clearly, traffic volume and potential time savings do not begin to generate transport cost savings (i.e. economic benefits) sufficient to justify the notable capital costs, not to mention the additional operation and maintenance costs.
Exhibit 5.3.3-4 Grade-Separated Intersections Travel Time Savings – Order of Magnitude Estimate
10,000 Vehicles per day on corridor 10% Left Turns 1,000 Left turning vehicles Time Savings per left turning 20 vehicle (seconds) Daily savings per interchange 20,000 (seconds) 9 Number of Interchanges Daily Savings for the entire 180,000 corridor (seconds) 3,600 Seconds per Hour Daily Savings for the entire 50 corridor (Hours) 300 Days per year 15,000 Total annual hours saved $22.89 Value per hour $343,400 Value of Annual Time Savings
Hamilton Connector (Alternative 4) – On a smaller scale, the potential times savings benefits of Hamilton Connector also falls far short of the capital cost. Currently, approximately 3,650 vehicles access NYS Route 12 from Hamilton via NYS Route 12B daily, taking approximately 11 minutes. The proposed connector would attract approximately half (50%) of this traffic (1,825), at best cutting the travel time to about eight minutes. Doing so, would yield annual savings in the range of $630,000, as shown in Exhibit 5.3.3-5.
October 2008 - 73 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
This excludes the disbenefit associated with higher speeds and Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) and the annual O&M costs. Further, the order-of-magnitude estimate excludes any local trips that travel only a portion of the corridor. Lastly, this estimate assumes all trips are work-related, which is an overestimate, since a majority of trips are personal and hence have a lower value of time. Given these traffic volumes, best-case benefit scenario, and associated capital costs, the proposed Hamilton Connector alternative does not show any signs of generating sufficient benefits to warrant the $28.6 million capital investment.
Exhibit 5.3.3-5 Hamilton Connector Travel Time Savings – Order of Magnitude Estimate
3,650 Vehicles per day on NY-12B Percent using new northbound Hamilton 50% Connector Vehicles per day on new northbound Hamilton 1,825 Connector Travel time saved on new northbound Hamilton 3.0 Connector (minutes) 5,475 Daily minutes saved 60 Minutes per hour 91 Hours saved per day $22.89 Value per hour $2,100 Value of Daily Time Savings 300 Days per year $630,000 Value of Annual Time Savings
Improvement Alternatives Analyzed Further – Given this first filter on potential economic feasibility, three of the ten alternatives were eliminated. Detailed traffic analysis was conducted of the remaining seven alternatives. The following subsection provides a traffic analysis filter to determine if each alternative generates any traffic savings in terms of distance and/or time. Specifically, a traffic analysis was conducted for the following seven alternatives: 1 I-88 Connector 2 I-81 Connector 3 NYS Route 8 Connector 5 Norwich Alternate Route (CR 32) 6 Norwich Bypass-West (New) 7 Sherburne Bypass (New) 9 3-Lane Segments
5.3.13 Traffic Analysis and Transportation Benefits The various proposed improvements to the existing network (i.e. the base) were applied to a sketch travel demand model, and used to estimate vehicle-miles- traveled (VMT) and vehicle-hours-traveled (VHT) by alternative. Traffic estimates are done for a base year (i.e. 2006) and a forecast year (i.e. 2026). Traffic estimates are then interpolated for the interim years after the project completion. The year 2026 results, summarized below in Exhibit 5.3.3-6, suggest that little change occurs
October 2008 - 74 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
in the entire network overall, and that one alternatives (i.e., Alt. 3) yield higher total VMT and VHT, suggesting that the improvement would further clog the existing system.
Exhibit 5.3.3-6 Daily VMT and VHT Savings by Alternative and Vehicle Type - 2026 Daily VHT Daily VMT Alternative Pass. Truck Total Pass. Truck Total 0 Base Case Volumes 650,913 31,196 682,109 25,100,394 1,617,680 26,718,074 Savings by Alternative 1 I-88 Connector 455 3 458 31 18 49 2 I-81 Connector 35 3 38 89 8 97 3 NY-8 Connector -61 38 -23 -5,876 -1,875 -7,751 5 Norwich Alternate Route 448 29 476 9,946 -2,310 7,635 6 Norwich Bypass-West 437 30 467 2,950 679 3,629 7 Sherburne Bypass 58 33 91 1,713 1,292 3,005 9 3-Lane Segments 92 2 94 317 7 324 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note that red indicates disbenefits (i.e. more VMT or VHT under the alternative than the base case)
Connector Alternatives – While counterintuitive at first glance, higher total VMT and VHT associated with highway improvements are not uncommon. In the case of the NYS Route 8 connector, (Alt. 3), the connector into Norwich on NYS Route 8 appears to further congest the Norwich area, leading to greater disbenefits for existing users. Specifically, both the net VHT and the VMT increase. This is due to the potential for the NYS Route 320/29 to NYS Route 12 route to become the most appealing path for travelers between New Berlin and Binghamton, diverting traffic that currently utilizes NYS Route 8. For this reason, the NYS Route 8 Connector (Alt. 3) is dropped from further economic analysis.
In the case of the two interstate connectors (Alt. 1 and Alt. 2), the new interstate connections generate some time (VHT) and travel distance (VMT) savings. The monetary values associated with these improvements are compared with the costs in the following section.
3-Lane Segments – The 3-lane segment alternative (Alt. 9) appears to generate only marginal daily VHT and VMT savings. While the improvements would enhance passing of slow-moving traffic, the existing and forecasted volumes are not high enough to suggest poor levels of service (LOS) without the improvements, so the change in average speeds with the improvements is not significant. Further, the improvements would also attract traffic from other routes (i.e. the parallel NYS Route 8) due to the increased travel speed. While attracted users would enjoy VHT savings, as would current users, the diverted traffic from NYS Route 8 would travel more miles (albeit at a higher speed) and offset overall some of the VHT savings compared to the base scenario.
Bypasses and Alternate Route – The VHT and VMT results for the other bypass/alternate routes (Alternatives 5, 6 and 7) all suggest varying levels of time and distance savings. The Norwich Alternate Route (Alt. 5) generates notable daily
October 2008 - 75 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
VHT and VMT savings (476 and 7,635, respectively). Comparatively, the Norwich Bypass-West (Alt. 6) yields similar daily VHT savings (467), but considerably lower VMT savings (3,629, less than half that of Alt. 5), due to the overall longer distance traveled to reconnect to NYS Route 12. Lastly, the Sherburne Bypass (Alt. 7) also generates VHT and VMT savings (467 and 3,005, respectively).
Summary – The ODME approach to the sketch travel demand model provides a tool for understanding the relative change in transportation patterns and metrics associated with various alternatives. The results from such an application in the study area indicate that:
• The NYS Route 8 Connector (Alt. 3) generates increased net VMT and VHT due to the diversion of traffic into an already congested Norwich area.
• The other two connector alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2) generate some savings.
• The 3-lane alternative (Alt. 9) yields only marginal travel time and distance reductions. • The Norwich Alternate Route (Alt. 5) yields the most favorable VHT and VMT savings. • The Norwich Bypass-West (Alt. 6) also generates net VHT and VMT savings.
• The other bypass alternative, the Sherburne Bypass (Alt. 7), yields modest net time and speed changes.
Based on these travel findings the six alternatives with either positive VMT or VHT are analyzed from an economic benefit/cost (i.e. feasibility) perspective. 6 So, based on the travel analysis filter, the following six alternatives are further analyzed from an economic perspective in the next section.
1 I-88 Connector 2 I-81 Connector 5 Norwich Alternate Route (CR 32) 6 Norwich Bypass-West 7 Sherburne Bypass 9 3-Lane Segments
6 Since the monetary benefits are based on the VMT and VHT savings, the NYS Route 8 alternative, with both negative VMT and VHT changes, cannot generate positive economic benefits.
October 2008 - 76 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
5.3.14 Economic Evaluation The economic evaluation of the proposed alternatives considers the transportation efficiency feasibility in monetary terms of the proposed alternatives, as well as the resulting economic impacts in terms of jobs, income and output. The section also presents the overall economic impact of each alternative (including those that do not yield net transport benefits). In addition to the travel characteristics presented previously, the economic evaluation incorporates the TREDIS model, further discussed below.
5.3.15 TREDIS Model Transportation Economic Development Impact System (TREDIS), developed by the Economic Development Research Group (EDRG), is an online-based, economic modeling and planning tool with the capability of estimating the full economic impact of transportation development projects. TREDIS is comprised of four modules, which, both independently and conjointly, estimate economic impacts from different aspects of the transportation developments. These include the impacts associated with the construction, maintenance, and operations expenditures on the transportation improvement projects, as well as the travel efficiency gains and accessibility benefits resulting from those improvements. TREDIS estimates the economic impacts through: • A travel cost module, measuring the direct cost savings to individuals and business resulting from changes in travel demand characteristics;
• An economic adjustment module, determining the secondary impact from industry linkages ensuing from the direct cost savings;
• A market access module, translating regional accessibility changes in consumer and supplier markets to additional regional productivity; and
• A benefit-cost accounting module, summarizing the results of the three previous modules, together with the costs of the development projects Economic impacts are measured in terms of economic output or gross regional product (GRP), value added, and annual employment. TREDIS ® is initially calibrated with the existing socioeconomic characteristics of the impact study area and requires, travel demand characteristics from a regional travel demand model as well as the anticipated costs of the improvement projects as the model inputs. Characteristics of travel demand, as estimated from the regional travel demand model, that are required for estimating the economic impacts in TREDIS ®, include vehicle hours traveled (VHT) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), by the various trip purposes. for both the build and the no-build scenarios.
5.3.16 Economic Feasibility The economic feasibility compares the transportation efficiency benefits to the associated construction and operating costs by alternative, thereby providing an economic metric for comparing the various alternatives. Often referred to as a Benefit-Cost-Analysis (BCA), a highway economic feasibility measures the net change in costs to the net change in user benefits.
October 2008 - 77 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
The following analysis follows the FHWA guidelines in the conduct of a highway feasibility analysis. In doing so, this section comprises three components: (1) estimation of transportation efficiency benefits; (2) determination of economic feasibility; and (3) sensitivity analysis.
Economic Analysis Primer – FHWA Guidelines BCA measures the direct impacts and costs that a project causes for highway agencies, travelers (users), and, in the case of externalities, to nonusers affected by the project. Direct benefits and costs are the first order or immediate impacts of the transportation project on users and nonusers, and consist of elements described earlier in this primer, including changes in travel time, crashes, vehicle operating costs, agency construction costs, and pollution costs. BCA typically does not measure how these direct benefits and costs are converted into indirect effects on the economy, such as changes in employment, wages, business sales, or land use. This is the role of EIA. Economists generally hold that the direct benefits and costs of transportation improvements measured using BCA are converted into wider, indirect, economic impacts through the operation of the marketplace. These converted, indirect effects are assumed to have the same net monetary value as the BCA-measure direct effects. Significantly, the value of most converted economic effects is not additive to the value of the BCA-measured direct effects— rather the former value is a restatement or capitalization of the latter value. Economic Analysis Primer; U.S. Department of Transportation, August 2003
Costs and Benefits Based on forecasted travel demand and TDM, various transportation efficiency impacts were calculated: • Travel-Time Cost Savings – Calculated separately for commercial transportation (i.e. trucks) and non-work related personal trips; each with varying assumptions regarding value of time, occupants per vehicle, etc.
• Vehicle-Operating Cost Savings – Since highway improvements may increase speeds and VMT, the net fuel consumption may rise (like number of accidents). Such speed changes may increase vehicle operating costs. Conversely, congestion improvements often offset these cost increases.
• Freight Logistics – The opportunity cost of Freight’s travel-time per ton is also affected by changes in travel demand. This can be interpreted as the marginal (hourly) cost of late delivery averaged across all trucked commodities inclusive of shipper inventory costs as well as carrier costs (dock handling, for example).
• Safety Benefits – Changes are calculated using the VMT and dollar values of accidents before and after the implementation of a transportation project. Accidents directly impact business costs through property damage, insurance costs, and reduced labor productivity, for both commercial transportation and business trip purposes. Therefore, safety cost changes are entered into the economic model as changes in the costs of doing business by industry. Each alternative was evaluated for the potential to reduce accidents due to improved roadway geometrics, in addition to the potential changes in the likelihood of accidents due to changes in VHT and VMT.
October 2008 - 78 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
• Emission Savings – Emission rates for many pollutants decline up to a certain speed (or threshold) and increase thereafter. Emission rates vary by vehicle category, and are dependant on a balance between the VMT and the average speeds changes, with and without a highway improvement project.
Unit Cost Assumptions – The various unit costs and assumptions for the transportation efficiency benefits are presented in Exhibit 5.3.4-1 (next page). Costs – The improvement costs for the ten alternatives are summarized below in Exhibit 5.3.4-2. These costs range from a low of $13 million for the NYS Route 8 Connector (Alt. 3) to $752 million for the Limited-Access Expressway (Alt. 10).
Exhibit 5.3.4-2 Capital Improvement and Annual O&M Costs by Alternative
Capital Annual Construction Improvement Options Improve O&M Period (Yrs) ment Costs 1 I-88 Connector $18 1 $50,000 2 I-81 Connector $14 1 $50,000 3 NY-8 Connector $13 1 $50,000 4 Hamilton Connector $29 1 $50,000 Norwich Alternate Route (CR 5 $14 1 $50,000 32) 6 Norwich Bypass - West $24 1 $50,000 7 Sherburne Bypass $18 1 $50,000 8 Grade Separated Interchanges $43 1.5 $50,000 9 3-Lane Segments $69 1.5 $50,000 10 New Expressway $752 2 $100,000 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Constant year 2008$ (Million)
October 2008 - 79 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.4-1 Unit Cost Components
Passenger Commercial Unit Car (Truck) Vehicle Operating Cost Components Fuel price $/gal $4.00 $4.50 Congested fuel efficiency 1 mile/gal 22.0 4.4 Free-flow fuel efficiency 2 mile/gal 33.0 6.3 Maintenance costs 3,4 $/mile $0.051 $0.100 Tire costs $/mile $0.008 $0.050 Depreciation $/mile $0.397 $0.400 Total Costs per Mile Congested $/mile $0.64 $1.46 Free-flow $/mile $0.58 $1.18 Value of Time Costs On-the-Clock 5,6 ($/hr) $22.89 $19.76 Commute 7 ($/hr) $11.44 na Personal/Rec 7 $11.44 na Additional Logistics Factor 8 ($/hr) na $2.05 Accident Costs Rates 9 per 100m Fatality Accident VMT 1.5 0.4 per 100m Personal Injury Accident VMT 90.0 12.0 per 100m Property Damage Accident VMT 206.0 198.0 Costs 10 Fatal accident cost ($/crash) $3,660,000 $3,660,000 Pers. Inj. Accident cost ($/crash) $211,000 $211,000 PDO accident cost ($/crash) $2,800 $2,800 Environmental Costs ($/veh- Cost per Mile 11 mi) $0.05 $0.26 1 U.S. EPA - assume s 15 mph 2 U.S. EPA - assumes 55 mph 3 AAA "Your Driving Costs", 2008 Edition 4 Berwick and Farooq (2003), adjusted to $2007 5 Pass Car/Lt. Truck wages reflect area average for "All Occupations" 00 -0000 6 Truck wages reflect occupation 53 -3032 - "Truc k Drivers, Heavy and Tractor -Trailer" 7 Commute and Personal passenger time values at 50% of "full" wage, following USDOT 8 Based on HERS methodology and average freight values (2002 CFS), adjusted to $2007 9 Bureau of Transportation Statist ics (2007) 10 US Averages 11 Litman et al, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2007
October 2008 - 80 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Economic Benefits – The resulting monetary transportation efficiency benefits in the year 2026 for the six potentially viable alternatives are summarized by benefit type in Exhibit 5.3.4-3. All monetary estimates are expressed in constant year 2008 values, which exclude inflation. The Norwich Alternate Route (Alt. 5) yields the highest net benefits ($3.39 million), followed by the Norwich Bypass-West (Alt. 6) with $2.85 million. The I-88 Connector (Alt. 1) and the Sherburne Bypass (Alt. 7) yield annual monetary benefits in 2026 ranging between $1.49 million and $1.65 million, respectively. The other two alternatives (Alt. 2 and Alt. 9) yield year 2026 benefits under $0.5 million. Exhibit 5.3.4-3 Annual Economic Efficiency Benefits by Type and Alternatives – 2026 NYS Route 12 Corridor Study Passenger Crew Freight Vehicle Alternative Safety Environ. Total Time Time Logistics Opr. Cost 1 I-88 Connector $1.44 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $1.49 2 I-81 Connector $0.11 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 $0.00 $0.18 5 Norwich Alternate Route $1.41 $0.17 $0.21 $0.91 $0.72 -$0.03 $3.39 6 Norwich Bypass-West $1.38 $0.18 $0.22 $0.75 $0.23 $0.10 $2.85 7 Sherburne Bypass $0.18 $0.19 $0.24 $0.76 $0.15 $0.13 $1.65 9 3-Lane Segments $0.29 $0.01 $0.02 $0.06 $0.02 $0.01 $0.41 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Constant year 2008$ (Million)
5.3.17 Alternative Feasibilities The annual benefits for these six alternatives are compared to the improvement and operation costs to determine their economic feasibility. This section summarizes the costs and the feasibility measures used to evaluate the alternatives. All monetary costs and benefits are first evaluated in constant dollar values exclusive of inflation. However, realizing the reality of skyrocketing fuel costs, a sensitivity analysis is also done in which fuel costs rise 10% annually between 2008 and 2017.
Economic Feasibility Indicators – Although people often think of a benefit/cost ratio as the primary indicator of an alternative’s economic feasibility, other indicators are even more important. Specifically, the three following measures are used to evaluate a project alternative’s economic feasibility and to formulate recommendations:
• Net Present Value (NPV) – The traditionally accepted decision rule for economic efficiency is to select the improvement project or alternative that yields the greatest net present value (NPV). The NPV compares the annual discounted revenues to the discounted costs.
• Internal Rate of Return (IRR) – The internal rate of return (IRR) is another useful tool in comparing a project’s worthiness to others. It determines at what discount rate a
October 2008 - 81 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
project’s net benefits would equal its net costs (i.e., the higher the IRR, the more favorable the project). It provides a good measure of the project’s robustness. 7
• Benefit Cost (B/C) Ratio – The discounted benefits divided by the discounted costs. This suggests that all projects with a B/C ratio valued over one are economically feasible, while all of those below a value of one are economically infeasible. Combined the three economic feasibility indicators provide both a measure of the various alternatives potential return as well as their robustness.
Economic Feasibility Findings – Comparison of the construction and annual O&M costs to the estimated transportation efficiency benefits over a 30-year period suggest are summarized in Exhibit 5.3.4-4 (including ROW costs) and the detailed monetary flows for each are presented in the Appendix.
Exhibit 5.3.4-4 Transportation Efficiency Feasibility Summary
NPV IRR B/C Ratio 1 I-88 Connector $211,600 7.1% 1.01 - 2 I-81 Connector -- 0.16 $10,783,000 5 Norwich Alternate Route (CR 32) $25,049,500 23.4% 2.83 6 Norwich Bypass - West $9,820,000 11.2% 1.43 7 Sherburne Bypass $2,209,200 8.4% 1.13 - 9 3-Lane Segments -- 0.07 $57,660,900 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates “--” indicates that the IRR cannot be calculated Constant year 2008$
The results suggest that the Norwich Alternate Route (CR 32) (Alt. 5) and the Bypass- West (Alt. 6) are both viable projects with NPVs of $25.0 million and $9.8 million. This arises because they both alleviated the congestion on NYS Route 12 in Norwich. Of the two, the Alternate Route (Alt.5) appears more robust than the new West Bypass (Alt.6) because of a higher IRR (23.4% versus 11.2), and a higher B/C Ratio (2.83 versus 1.43).
7Revenues and costs (present and future) are tabulated in constant dollars (excluding inflation). Because of the “time-value-of-money” and the preference of having monetary returns earlier versus later, all future revenues and costs are “discounted-back” to a base year. By doing so the analysis accounts for the “opportunity-cost” of investing in one project versus another. The selected discount rate greatly impacts the project’s feasibility and should reflect a project’s risk as well as the general cost of capital. This discount rate reflects an expected return-on-investment in the general marketplace if the project costs were invested elsewhere (i.e., the stock market, bonds, etc.). A constant dollar discount rate of 7% is typically required in the analysis of transportation projects, which excludes future price level changes (i.e., inflation).
October 2008 - 82 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
The I-88 Connector (Alt. 1) and the Sherburne Bypass (Alt. 7) are marginally feasible, with slightly feasible B/C ratios (1.01 and 1.12, respectively) and IRR’s close to the 7% discount rate. Comparatively, the I-81 (Alt. 1) and the 3-Lane Connector yield very poor results with very low B/C ratios (0.16 and 0.07, respectively) and negative NPVs. 8
5.3.17 Sensitivity Analysis The outcome of the transportation efficiency analysis depends on numerous estimates, forecasts, and assumptions. Each factor introduces the possibility of uncertainty into the results. Given the ever increasing price of motor fuels and the increased VMT observed for several alternatives, a key sensitivity analysis conducted looked at the effect of increasing fuel price 10% annually from 2008 to 2018. Doing so results in gasoline rising from $4.00 to $9.43 (and diesel rising from $4.50 to $10.61). 9
The results in Exhibit 5.3.4-5 show that all of the alternatives actually improve slightly due to the fuel cost increase. This occurs because each alternative generates lower travel distances (i.e., VMT savings). While the I-88 Connector alternative yields a marginal B/C ratio change (from 1.01 to 1.02), the Sherburne Bypass yields a marked B/C ratio increase from 1.13 to 1.84, suggesting that it is more robust under a future of high fuel prices due travel distance reductions.
Exhibit 5.3.4-5 Economic Efficiency Feasibility – Fuel Price Sensitivity Summary
B/C NPV IRR Ratio 1 I-88 Connector $393,600 7.2% 1.02 - 2 I-81 Connector $10,496,500 -- 0.18 5 Norwich Alternate Route (CR 32) $39,190,000 32.0% 3.87 6 Norwich Bypass - West $30,559,600 26.8% 3.24 7 Sherburne Bypass $13,911,500 15.1% 1.84 - 9 3-Lane Segments $56,764,400 -- 0.09 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates “--” indicates that the IRR cannot be calculated Constant year 2008$
5.3.18 Economic Feasibility Summary The traffic model results obtained from the ODME approach yielded marginal VHT and VMT savings for four of the nine alternatives evaluated. Nonetheless, the extremely modest VHT and VMT savings appear to suggest that some highway improvements would be feasible from an economic perspective. Specifically:
8 Further, their IRR’s are so low that they cannot be calculated; this occurs when no positive discount rate can make the project breakeven. 9 Note that all prices reflect constant year 2008 values, with the exception of fuel prices in this sensitivity analysis.
October 2008 - 83 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
• The congestion around Norwich suggests that either the Norwich Alternate Route (CR 32) (Alt. 5) or the Norwich Bypass-West (Alt. 6) is feasible with B/C ratios of 2.83 and 1.43, respectively.
• The Sherburne Bypass, (Alternative 7), was also found to be feasible with 1.13 B/C ratio that rises notably under the high fuel price sensitivity analysis to 1.84, because the route reduces travel distance.
• Simply constructing the 3-lane segments (passing lanes) (Alt. 9) will not generate sufficient transport cost savings to warrant the capital investment. Very low feasibility indicators (NPV, IRR and B/C ratio) were due to the comparatively high construction costs associated with the nine sections, which yielded only marginal transport cost savings.
• While the I-81 Connector (Alt 2) showed no promise of economic feasibility (an extremely low B/C ratio of 0.07), the I-88 Connector (Alt. 1) showed some marginal potential with a slightly feasible B/C ratio of 1.01. For this reason, a specific alignment, more refined costs, and a more detailed travel demand model are needed to definitively state whether or not the I-88 Connector (Alt. 1) is economically feasible. In summary, the traffic model and the economic feasibility analysis considered many improvement scenarios. Of these, the most attractive appears to be the Norwich Alternate Route (CR-32) and Bypass-West (New), which alleviate the congested city center. The Sherburne Bypass also yielded encouraging economic feasibility indicators due to the reduced travel distance and resulting time savings.
5.3.19 Economic Development Impacts The economic impact analysis evaluates the resulting jobs, wages and output from both constructing the various improvements as well as the resulting impacts associated with the travel efficiencies. The following table summarizes the impact categories, types and measures that are assessed. Each is described below.
Impact Categories – The economic impacts associated the various highway improvement alternatives can be evaluated in terms of the jobs and output generated during the initial construction period and subsequent annual operation. While important, such transportation improvement related impacts are not the sole purpose of the investment; large scale infrastructure investment, regardless of purpose, typically generates notable economic impacts. Additionally, the associated transportation efficiency-related impacts that arise from the improvements provide a measure of economic-effectiveness from which to evaluate the project’s worthiness or feasibility, not the construction and maintenance related impacts. Exhibit 5.3.4-7 conceptually shows the economic impact categories and types addressed for the various alternatives.
October 2008 - 84 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.4-7 Example Economic Impact Categories and Types
Impact Types Impact Categories Direct Indirect Induced Highway Improvements Construction ------Operations & Maintenance ------Travel Efficiencies Travel Time Savings ------Accident Cost Savings ------Vehicle Operating Cost Savings ------Emission Cost Savings ------Note, tables shown for illustrative purpose only – no data intended to be shown
Impact Measures – Economic impacts associated with regional freight movements will be measured in four ways: Business Output, Regional Productivity, Wage Income, and Employment, as defined below.
• Business Output – The total dollar value of all final goods and services produced within a region.
• Regional Productivity (Value Added) – The additional value or output created, net of the intermediate supplies used to produce it; often referred to a gross regional (or domestic) product.
• Wage Income – The total dollar value of the wages and salaries of employees and proprietors within a region.
• Employment – The number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs for all industries within a region. Impact Types – The three impact measures each comprise three impact types: Direct, Indirect and Induced impacts. The impacts are typically calculated and entered into the economic model, as described below:
• Direct Impacts – Measured in terms of employment, income, and/or output generated by firms or entities from the development of a transportation improvement. Additionally, the direct impacts include the estimated transportation efficiency-related savings in terms of travel time, cost savings, etc. (see Impact Categories below).
• Indirect Impacts – The indirect impacts reflect support services and/or supplies provided to the firms/entities that generate the direct impact, and will be derived using the selected economic model
• Induced Impacts – The re-spending effect of earnings by people employed directly or indirectly in the movement of regional goods. For example, the induced impact measures how income circulates through a region on groceries, housing, etc.
October 2008 - 85 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
5.3.19 Highway Improvement Impacts Consisting of both construction and operation and maintenance (O&M), the impacts of the highway improvements would have a significant short-term impact over the one-to- two year construction period followed by a marginal impact associated with the additional operation and maintenance of the expanded facilities.
Construction – All of the proposed alternatives would generate jobs, earnings and output for one to two years. Intuitively, the greater the cost of the construction project the greater the associated economic impact. The impact estimates shown below in Exhibit 5.3.4-8 include the actual construction expenditures, right-of-way (ROW) costs are excluded since they principally represent a transfer from one property owner to another. 10
The results suggest that the direct impacts associated with physical construction of the Route 12 improvements would range from 90 jobs in Alt. 3 to 311 jobs in Alt. 9. These jobs would create additional indirect and induced job impacts associated with regional suppliers and the re-spending of wages. Combined, the total jobs impact, inclusive of the direct, indirect and induced effects would range between 160 and 554 jobs. Again, it is stressed that these are single year impacts associated only with the construction and would mostly disappear in the following year.
10 A transaction cost could be estimated at a percentage of the ROW costs, however the magnitude of such impacts is relatively small and would involve people already employed, such impacts are excluded
October 2008 - 86 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.4-8 Construction-Related Economic Impacts by Impact Type, Measure and Alternative - 2013
Impact Type Impact Measure Direct Indirect Induced Total Output 1 I-88 Connector $13,800,000 $2,515,500 $7,836,100 $24,151,600 2 I-81 Connector $10,300,000 $1,877,500 $5,848,600 $18,026,100 Norwich Alternate 5 Route $9,812,500 $1,788,600 $5,571,800 $17,172,900 6 Norwich Bypass $20,637,500 $3,761,800 $11,718,600 $36,117,900 7 Sherburne Bypass $14,600,000 $2,661,300 $8,290,300 $25,551,600 9 3-Lane Segments $34,082,000 $6,212,500 $19,352,800 $59,647,300 Value Added 1 I-88 Connector $7,103,200 $1,287,700 $4,700,600 $13,091,500 2 I-81 Connector $5,301,700 $961,100 $3,508,400 $9,771,200 Norwich Alternate 5 Route $5,050,700 $915,600 $3,342,400 $9,308,700 6 Norwich Bypass $10,622,600 $1,925,700 $7,029,700 $19,578,000 7 Sherburne Bypass $7,515,000 $1,362,300 $4,973,100 $13,850,400 9 3-Lane Segments $17,542,800 $3,180,200 $11,609,200 $32,332,200 Employment 1 I-88 Connector 126 20 78 224 2 I-81 Connector 94 15 58 167 Norwich Alternate 5 Route 90 14 56 160 6 Norwich Bypass 189 30 117 336 7 Sherburne Bypass 133 22 83 238 9 3-Lane Segments 311 50 193 554 Wages 1 I-88 Connector $5,876,800 $938,200 $2,963,400 $9,778,400 2 I-81 Connector $4,386,300 $700,200 $2,211,800 $7,298,300 Norwich Alternate 5 Route $4,178,700 $667,100 $2,107,200 $6,953,000 6 Norwich Bypass $8,788,600 $1,403,000 $4,431,700 $14,623,300 7 Sherburne Bypass $6,217,500 $992,500 $3,135,200 $10,345,200 9 3-Lane Segments $14,514,000 $2,317,000 $7,318,800 $24,149,800 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates & IMPLAN (multipliers within TREDIS model) Note these are single year impact that primarily occur in 2013 Constant year 2008$
Operation and Maintenance Impacts – At an annual cost of ranging between $50,000 to $100,000 per alternative, the economic impacts associated with the operation and maintenance of the proposed are minimal with only 1-2 additional jobs attracted per alternative, as summarized for employment in Exhibit 5.3.4-9.
October 2008 - 87 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.4-9 O&M-Related Employment Impacts by Alternative
Impact Type (# Jobs) Impact Measure Direct Indirect Induced Total 1 I-88 Connector 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.0 2 I-81 Connector 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.0 3 NY-8 Connector 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.0 4 Norwich Alternate Route (CR 32) 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.0 5 Norwich Bypass - West 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.0 6 Sherburne Bypass 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.0 7 3-Lane Segments (Passing Lanes) 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.0 Norwich Alternate Route & Passing 8 Lanes 1.2 0.2 0.6 2.0 Norwich Byp., NYS Route 8 Cnt. & 9 Pass.Lns (S.of Norwich) 1.2 0.2 0.6 2.0 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates & IMPLAN
5.3.20 Travel-Efficiency Related Economic Development Impacts The more germane measure of the proposed highway improvements (versus the construction impacts) is how the travel efficiency benefits associated with time, vehicle operating cost, logistics, etc. translate into jobs, output and value-added impacts. This analysis takes the previously developed travel efficiency savings and runs them through the TREDIS model to ascertain the magnitude of potential economic development associated with the transportation savings.
The modest level of travel efficiency benefits suggest that the annual change in business output, value-added, jobs and wage impacts would also be modest. The resulting impacts for the year 2026 are summarized in Exhibit 5.3.4-10 for the six alternatives evaluated in the previous section. The results are shown under a constant fuel cost assumption scenario.
October 2008 - 88 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Exhibit 5.3.4-10 Travel-Efficiency Related Economic Development Impacts – Year 2026
Business Regional Wage Output Productivity Income # Jobs ($Million) ($Million) ($Million) 1 I-88 Connector $1.58 $0.66 $0.47 12 2 I-81 Connector $0.20 $0.08 $0.06 1 5 Norwich Alternate Route (CR 32) $4.22 $1.87 $1.26 35 6 Norwich Bypass - West $3.02 $1.34 $0.93 23 7 Sherburne Bypass $1.62 $0.75 $0.52 12 9 3-Lane Segments $0.44 $0.19 $0.13 3 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates and TREDIS model Constant year 2008$ (Million)
The two Norwich alternatives (Alt. 5 and Alt. 6) yield the highest economic development impacts. Measured in terms of jobs, the Norwich Alternate Route would generate 35 additional jobs by the year 2026. These employees would earn approximately $1.26 million, and generate $4.22 million in additional output. Excluding, intermediate supplies and services, Alt. 5 would raise annual productivity in the study region by $1.87 million. It is noted that these are annual impacts associated with transport cost savings detailed in Section 4.1 and 4.2.
October 2008 - 89 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
6. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
October 2008 - 90 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
6. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Evaluation of Alternatives / Summary
The New York State Department of Transportation undertook this Phase II Study of the NYS Route 12 corridor, in order to expand upon the previously completed Phase I Report (attached as Appendix A). The Phase I study identified short-term projects that focused on localized travel efficiency and safety benefits, whereas Phase II addressed more long-range improvements to better explore the increased functionality of the regional highway network. Numerous macro-scale improvement alternatives were identified and evaluated in terms of potential transportation and economic benefits.
Ultimately, eleven alternatives were analyzed, and presented to the NYS Route 12 Task Force, local businesses, officials, and residents. Each reflected a unique way to potentially improve travel times and potentially improve the perception and functionality of the NYS Route 12 corridor. Further, each viable alternative was analyzed from an economic standpoint, in order to better understand the probable costs and potential benefits arriving from each alternative.
The following sub-sections summarize the findings for each of the long range alternatives evaluated during Phase II of this study:
1. I-88 Connector o Concept : To connect I-88 to NYS Route 12 via a new connector road near the Port Crane area.
o Transportation Benefits : Potentially saves 2 minutes in travel time from the current 6 minute trip along NYS Routes 12 & 12A.
o Project Concerns : Potential impacts to neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas.
o Estimated Construction Costs : $18 million
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : $17 million
This alternative marginally meets the evaluation criteria established in the Decision Making Matrix, in terms of providing some travel time savings and the potential for enhanced commercial and commuter access, and therefore appears to warrant further consideration within the Department of Transportation's capital program.
October 2008 - 91 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
2. I-81 Connector o Concept : To connect I-81 to NYS Route 12 via a new connector road near the Whitney Point area.
o Transportation Benefits : Potentially saves 8 minutes in travel time compared to the current 20-minute trip along CR-79.
o Project Concerns : Potential impacts to residential areas and environmentally sensitive areas.
o Estimated Construction Costs : $14 million
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : $2 million
The costs associated with this construction alternative outweigh the estimated benefits. In addition, this alternative would likely have significant environmental and residential impacts; and does not appear to include significant savings in either VHT or VMT. For these reasons, this alternative should not be further considered in the Department of Transportation's capital program.
3. NYS Route 8 Connector o Concept : To improve the connection between Norwich and New Berlin by upgrading either NYS Route 320 or 29.
o Transportation Benefits : Travel times would likely not be reduced. However, NYS Route 12 may draw more traffic from the parallel NYS Route 8.
o Project Concerns : Diverting traffic volumes from NYS Route 8 may prove detrimental to travel times along the NYS Route 12 corridor.
o Estimated Construction Costs : $13 million
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : Negligible
The costs associated with this alternative outweigh the estimated benefits. In addition, this alternative has shown the potential to increase congestion within the Norwich area. For these reasons, this alternative should not be further considered in the Department of Transportation's capital program.
October 2008 - 92 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
4. Hamilton Connector o Concept : To better connect the Village of Hamilton to northern portions of NYS Route 12 via a new connector road.
o Transportation Benefits : Potentially saves 4 minutes in travel time compared to the current 28-minute trip along local roads.
o Project Concerns : Potential impacts to residential areas and environmentally sensitive areas.
o Estimated Construction Costs : $29 million
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : Negligible
The costs associated with this alternative outweigh the estimated benefits. In addition, this alternative would likely have local, agricultural, and residential impacts; and does not appear to include significant economic benefit. For these reasons, this alternative should not be further considered in the Department of Transportation's capital program.
5. Norwich Alternate Route (County Route 32) o Concept : To divert commercial traffic around the urbanized areas of Norwich by designating the existing CR 32 corridor as an alternate route.
o Transportation Benefits : Potentially saves 5 minutes in travel time during peak travel hours and improves the level-of-service within the congested areas along NYS Route 12.
o Project Concerns : Potential impacts to commercial and residential areas due to increased truck traffic and widened shoulders.
o Estimated Construction Costs : $14 million
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : $39 million
This alternative appears to meet the evaluation criteria established in the Decision Making Matrix, in terms of providing both travel time savings and the potential for enhanced commercial and commuter access, and therefore appears to warrant further consideration within the Department of Transportation's capital program.
October 2008 - 93 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
6. Norwich Bypass West (New) o Concept : To provide a through-traffic bypass around the west side of Norwich via a new State route.
o Transportation Benefits : Potentially saves 5 minutes in travel time during peak travel hours and improves the levels-of-service within congested areas along NYS Route 12.
o Project Concerns : Potential impacts to residential areas due to increased truck traffic.
o Estimated Construction Costs : $24 million
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : $33 million
This alternative also appears to meet the evaluation criteria established in the Decision Making Matrix, in terms of providing both travel time savings and the potential for enhanced commercial access. However, in comparison with the Norwich Alternate Route (CR-32) alternative, the Norwich Bypass West is more costly, has significantly more impact to neighborhoods, and does not provide the same potential benefit. Therefore, this alternative should not be further considered in the Department of Transportation's capital program.
7. Sherburne Bypass (New) o Concept : To provide a through-traffic bypass around the Village of Sherburne.
o Transportation Benefits : Potentially saves up to 5 minutes in travel time compared to the current 8-minute trip though downtown. Also reduces the overall vehicle miles traveled by shortening the centerline distance.
o Project Concerns : Potential impacts to residential areas.
o Estimated Construction Costs : $18 million
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : $19 million
This alternative marginally meets the evaluation criteria established in the Decision Making Matrix, in terms of providing some travel time and vehicle miles traveled savings and the potential for enhanced commercial and commuter access, and
October 2008 - 94 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
therefore appears to warrant further consideration within the Department of Transportation's capital program.
8. Grade-Separated Interchanges o Concept : To replace several identified at-grade intersections with grade- separated interchanges.
o Transportation Benefits : Little practical benefit, due to relatively low traffic volumes along these segments of NYS Route 12 and the intersecting roads.
o Project Concerns : High costs
o Estimated Construction Costs : $43 million (8 interchanges)
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : None
The costs associated with this alternative appear to far outweigh any estimated benefits. In addition, this alternative does not appear to reduce travel times in a measurable way. For these reasons, this alternative should not be further considered in the Department of Transportation's capital program.
9. 3-Lane Segments o Concept : To provide consistent and safe passing opportunities by adding passing lanes in numerous locations.
o Transportation Benefits : Potentially saves several seconds of travel time per vehicle-mile of 3-lane sections.
o Project Concerns : Potential impacts to residential areas and environmentally sensitive areas due to the widened roadway.
o Estimated Construction Costs : $69 million (all locations)
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : $5 million
This alternative may include some transportation benefit to commuters in terms of the perceived reliability of the corridor. However, the costs associated with this alternative outweigh the estimated benefits. In addition, this alternative would likely have limited agricultural, environmental, and residential impacts associated with the roadway widening; and does not appear to include significant economic benefit. For these reasons, this alternative should not be further considered in the Department of
October 2008 - 95 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
Transportation's capital program, and would have to be developed as a stand-alone project if progressed further.
10. Limited Access Expressway on New Alignment o Concept : To construct an interstate-type access controlled expressway connecting Binghamton to Utica.
o Transportation Benefits : Potentially saves nearly 30 minutes in travel time between Binghamton and Utica.
o Project Concerns : Significant project and maintenance costs, as well as impacts to residential, agricultural, commercial, and environmental areas.
o Estimated Construction Costs : $752 million
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : Negligible compared to project costs
The costs associated with this alternative dwarf the estimated benefits. In addition, this alternative would include major impacts to residential areas, agricultural area, and established communities. For these reasons, this alternative should not be further considered in the Department of Transportation's capital program.
11. Other Municipal Bypasses o Concept : To provide through-traffic bypasses around several other municipalities.
o Transportation Benefits : Little practical benefit, due to relatively low traffic volumes in these areas.
o Project Concerns : Potential impacts to residential and agricultural areas.
o Estimated Construction Costs : N/A – excluded from detailed evaluation
o Total Estimated Economic Benefit : N/A – excluded from detailed evaluation
The costs associated with this alternative appear to outweigh any estimated benefits. In addition, this alternative does not appear to significantly reduce travel times, and may have considerable impacts to local communities. For these reasons, this
October 2008 - 96 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
alternative should not be further considered in the Department of Transportation's capital program.
Following the publication of this draft report, NYSDOT will solicit another round of public input, at which time the Final Report will be completed. Based on the preliminary results discussed above, the following section provides recommendations regarding those alternatives that warrant further condensation and preliminary engineering analysis.
6.2 Decision-Making Matrix
A planning-level Decision-Making Matrix has been developed that arrays each alternative against several criteria. The results show (in a readily identifiable format) the benefits, impacts, and costs associated with each alternative. The full matrix is available in Appendix D.
EVALUATION MATRIX Minor Impact Major Benefit NY-12 CORRIDOR STUDY - PHASE II Moderate Impact Minor Benefit Benefit/Impact Related to other Alternatives High Impact No Benefit
Improved Access * Construction * Total Cost Environmental Travel Time Reduced Vehicle Potential reduction Total Economic Alternative to Statewide B/C Ratio Cost (millions) (millions) Effects Savings Operating Costs in accident rate Benefit (millions) Economic Centers
I-88 Connector $18 $22 $17 1.01
I-81 Connector $14 $18 $2 0.16
NY-8 Connector $13 $16 - 0
Hamilton Connector $29 $36 - 0
Norwich Alternate Route (CR-32) $14 $16 $39 2.83
Norwich Bypass-West (New) $24 $30 $33 1.43
Sherburne Bypass (New) $18 $23 $19 1.13
Grade Separated Interchanges $43 $54 - 0
3-Lane Segments $69 $80 $5 0.07
4 Lane Expressway on New Alignment $752 $1,000 - 0
* Impacts to Regional Construction Programs and Allocations 7/14/2008
October 2008 - 97 - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II
6.3 Final Recommendations
As shown in the previous sections, most of the identified alternatives failed to meet the identified evaluation criteria as determined by the Task Force and the NYSDOT, with due consideration of input obtained during the public participation phase of the study.
Of the alternatives analyzed, the only concepts that demonstrated a favorable benefit-to- cost ratio are the following:
o Norwich Alternate Route (CR 32) o Norwich Bypass (west)
Since both of these alternatives meet the same objective in the same project location, the obvious choice to warrant possible further consideration is the Norwich Alternate Route (CR 32).
In addition, two of the studied alternatives demonstrated benefit-to-cost ratios only slightly below the favorable threshold, and may warrant a further, more detailed, project study. Those alternatives are:
o Sherburne Bypass o I-88 Connector
It should be noted that all of the identified alternatives are at this time unfunded, and would need to be implemented as projects of statewide-significance, outside of the annual Regional capital programs.
It is the recommendation of this study that any additional funding made available to the NYS Route 12 corridor, with the possible exception of the alternatives listed above, may be best allocated to the type of localized safety, mobility, and capacity improvements suggested in Phase I, as opposed to the large-scale corridor improvements studied in this phase. The enormous capital costs of the alternatives analyzed simply do not support the marginal benefits gained to the regional network.
October 2008 - 98 -