DRAFT DESIGN REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & SECTION 4(F)

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

July 2011

Bridge Replacement Project P.I.N. 2134.41 BINS: 1002281, 1002282 , 100228A, 100228B NYS Routes 5, 8 and 12 (Utica North- South Arterial) Viaduct City of Utica

Oneida County

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor JOAN McDONALD, Commissioner

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET (Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU Matrix) A. IPP Approval: The project is ready to be added to the Regional Capital Program and project scoping can begin.

The IPP was approved by: 2/22/05 Mark Silo, P.E. Regional Director

B. Scope Approval: The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program. The scope was approved by: 1/27/09 Michael A. Shamma, P.E. Regional Director

C. Public Hearing A public hearing was held on ______in accordance with 23 USC 128. Certification (23 USC 128):

Project Team Leader

D. Recommendation for The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program. Design Approval:

Regional Program Manager

E. Recommendation for All requirements requisite to these actions and approvals have been met, the Design and Nonstandard required independent quality control reviews separate from the functional group Feature Approval: reviews have been accomplished, and the work is consistent with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise noted and explained.

Regional Design Engineer

F. Nonstandard Feature The nonstandard features have been adequately justified and it is not prudent to Approval: eliminate them as part of this project.

Deputy Chief Engineer, Design

G. Design Approval: The required environmental determinations have been made and the preferred alternative for this project is ready for final design.

Deputy Chief Engineer, Design July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

LIST OF PREPARERS

Group Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document:

Stephen J. Zywiak, P.E., Regional Design Engineer, NYSDOT Region 2

Note: It is a violation of law for any person, unless they are acting under the direction of a licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor, to alter an item in any way. If an item bearing the stamp of a licensed professional is altered, the altering engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor shall stamp the document and include the notation "altered by" followed by their signature, the date of such alteration, and a specific description of the alteration.

This report was prepared by the following NYSDOT staff:

Brian R. Hoffmann, P.E., NYSDOT Region 2

Kenneth L. Reilly, P.E., NYSDOT Region 2

Description of Work Performed: Prepared Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and Appendices A, D and F for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER (Title / PIN / Location) TITLE SHEET PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET LIST OF PREPARERS

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 -1 1.2. Purpose and Need ...... 1 -1 1.2.1. Where is the Project Located?...... 1-1 1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed?...... 1-4 1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project?...... 1-4 1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered? ...... 1 -5 1.4. How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment? ...... 1 -10 1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedules? ...... 1 -11 1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred? ...... 1 -11 1.7. Who Will Decide Which Alternative Will Be Selected And How Can I Be Involved In This Decision?...... 1-11

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS 2.1. Project History ...... 2 -1 2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use ...... 2 -1 2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area...... 2-1 2.2.1.1. Local Plans ...... 2 -1 2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans ...... 2 -2 2.2.2. Transportation Corridor...... 2-3 2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment ...... 2 -3 2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes ...... 2 -3 2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs ...... 2 -3 2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans ...... 2 -4 2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments - ..... 2 -4 2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations ...... 2 -5 2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance...... 2-5 2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) ...... 2 -5 2.3.1.2. Control of Access ...... 2 -5 2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices ...... 2 -5 2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ...... 2 -9 2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay ...... 2 -10 2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes ...... 2 -10 2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility ...... 2 -11 2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ...... 2 -12 2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access……………………………….. 2-13 2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions ...... 2 -14 2.3.1.11. Lighting ...... 2 -14 2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ...... 2 -14 2.3.2. Multimodal...... 2-16 2.3.2.1. Pedestrians ...... 2 -16 2.3.2.2. Bicyclists...... 2 -17 2.3.2.3. Transit ...... 2 -17 2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports ...... 2 -18 2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) ...... 2 -18 2.3.3. Infrastructure...... 2-18 2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section ...... 2 -18 2.3.3.2. Critical Design Elements and Other Controlling Parameters………………………….. 2-18 2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder ...... 2 -20 2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems ...... 2 -20 2.3.3.5. Geotechnical ...... 2 -21 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.3.3.6. Structures ...... 2 -21 2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ...... 2 -25 2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators ...... 2 -25 2.3.3.9. Utilities ...... 2 -27 2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities ...... 2 -28 2.3.4. Exisitng Social, Economic,and Environmental Considerations...... 22 -29 2.3.4.1. Landscape ...... 2 -29 2.3.4.2. Social Resources…………………………………………………………………………… 2-30 2.3.4.3. Economic Resources………………………………………………………………………. 2-30 2.3.4.4. Envirionmental Resources…………………………………………………………………. 2-30 2.3.4.5. Opportunities for Environmental Improvements ...... 2 -30 2.3.5. Miscellaneous...... 2 -30

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES 3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study ...... 3 -1 3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives ...... 3 -2 3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives...... 3-2 3.2.2 Preferred Alternative...... 3-4 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s)...... 3-4 3.2.3.1. Design Standards ...... 3 -4 3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements ...... 3 -4 3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters ...... 3 -17 3.3. Engineering Considerations ...... 3 -18 3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance...... 3-18 3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System ...... 3 -18 3.3.1.2. Control of Access ...... 3 -18 3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices ...... 3 -18 3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ...... 3 -18 3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay ...... 3 -18 3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes ...... 3 -18 3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility ...... 3 -20 3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ...... 3 -27 3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access…………………………… 3-28 3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues ...... 3 -28 3.3.1.11. Lighting ...... 3 -29 3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ...... 3 -29 3.3.1.13. Constructability Review …………………………………………………………………. 3-29 3.3.2. Multimodal...... 3-31 3.3.2.1. Pedestrians ...... 3 -31 3.3.2.2. Bicyclists...... 3 -32 3.3.2.3. Transit ...... 3 -32 3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports ...... 3 -32 3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) ...... 3 -32 3.3.3. Infrastructure...... 3-32 3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section ...... 3 -32 3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements ...... 3 -34 3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder ...... 3 -36 3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems ...... 3 -36 3.3.3.5. Geotechnical ...... 3 -36 3.3.3.6. Structures ...... 3 -37 3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ...... 3 -38 3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators ...... 3 -38 3.3.3.9. Utilities ...... 3 -38 3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities ...... 3 -38 3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements...... 3-38 3.3.4.1. Landscape Development ...... 3 -39 3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements ...... 3 -39 3.3.5. Miscellaneous...... 3-39 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS and CONSEQUENCES 4.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 -1 4.1.1. Environmental Classification and Lead Agencies……………………………………...... 4 - 1 4.1.2. Cooperating, Participating, and Involved Agencies ...... 4 -1 4.2. Social ...... 4 -2 4.2.1. Land Use…………………………………………………………………………………… 4 - 3 4.2.2. Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ...... 4 -11 4.2.3. Social Groups Benefited or Harmed ...... 4 -16 4.2.4. School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship………………………….. 4-17 4.3 Economic ...... 4 -17 4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies………………………………………………………… 4 - 17 4.3.2 Business Districts…………………………………………………………………………… 4-18 4.3.3 Specific Businesses Impacts..……………………………………………………………… 4-19 4.4 Environmental ...... 4 -22 4.4.1. Wetlands…………………………………………………………………………………...... 4-22 4.4.2. Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses……………………………………………….... 4-22 4.4.3. Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers…………………………………………………… 4-23 4.4.4. Navigable Waters…………………………………………………………………………... 4-23 4.4.5. Floodplains…………………………………………………………………………………… 4-24 4.4.6. Coastal Resources………………………………………………………………………….. 4-24 4.4.7. Aquifers, Wells, and Reservoirs………………………………………………………...... 4-24 4.4.8. Stormwater Management…………………………………………………………………... 4-25 4.4.9. General Ecology and Wildlife Resources……………………………………………….... 4-25 4.4.10. Critical Environmental Areas……………………………………………………………... 4-27 4.4.11. Historic and Cultural Resources………………………………………………………..... 4-27 4.4.12. Parks and Recreational Resources…………………………………………………….... 4-31 4.4.13. Visual Resources………………………………………………………………………...... 4-31 4.4.14. Farmlands………………………………………………………………………………...... 4-32 4.4.15 Air Quality………………………………………………………………………………...... 4-32 4.4.16 Energy……………………………………………………………………………………….. 4-40 4.4.17 Noise……………………………………………………………………………………...... 4-40 4.4.18 Asbestos………………………………………………………………………………………..4- 41 4.4.19 Contaminated and Hazardous Materials……………………………………………….....4 -41 4.5 Construction Effects………………..…………………………………………………………………… 4-43 4.6 Indirect (Secondary) Impacts……………..………………………………………………………….. 4-44 4.7 Cumulative Impacts……………………………………………………………………………………. 4-45

CHAPTER 5 – DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 5.1 Introduction and Methodology…………………………………………………………………………. 5-1 5.2 Applicability of Section 4(f) to the Project…………………………………………………………….. 5-1 5.3 The Route 5, 8 and 12 North-South Arterial Project……………………………………………….... 5-2 5.4 Description of Alternatives……………………………………………………………………………… 5-2 5.5 Avoidance Alternatives…………………………………………………………………………………. 5-2 5.6 Description of Section 4(f) Resources………………………………………………………………… 5-3 5.7 Impacts of Alternatives on Section 4(f) Resources………………………………………………….. 5-4 5.8 Measures to Minimize Harm…………………………………………………………………………… 5-5 5.9 Coordination……………………………………………………………………………………………... 5-5

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Appendices

A. Maps, Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections Environmental Information B1. NEPA Checklist & Correspondence B. B2. Cultural Resources B3. Air Quality B4. Noise Traffic Information (A printed copy of the portion of the appendix that consists of Capacity Analysis C. Calculations is available upon request.) D. Community Survey Structures Information (Consists of Biennial Bridge Inspection Reports. Printed Copy Available Upon E. Request) F. Non-Standard Features Justification Forms G. Public Involvement (PI) Plan, LEP Analysis and Input from Stakeholders including Public H. Right-of-Way Information I. Pedestrian Information

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. Introduction

This project proposes to address deficiencies in the viaduct carrying NYS Routes 5, 8 and 12 (The Utica North-South Arterial) over Columbia Street, Lafayette Street and NYS Routes 5A/5S (Oriskany Boulevard) in the City of Utica, Oneida County. Traffic safety and operational deficiencies at the interchange of the arterial with Routes 5A/5S and at the Court Street intersection will also be addressed. Pedestrian and bicycle safety, access, mobility, community cohesion and aesthetics are important factors in the decision making process.

This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, SEQR 17 NYCRR Part 15, and NEPA 23 CFR 771.

1.2. Purpose and Need

1.2.1. Where is the Project Located?

The project is located on the overlap of NYS Routes 5, 8 & 12, commonly referred to as the Utica North- South Arterial, beginning just south of the Sunset Avenue intersection and ending near the bridge over CSX Railroad. The total project length is approximately 0.8 miles. It is within the City of Utica and Oneida County. Please see the Project Location Maps below. The project study area includes the portion of the City of Utica that surrounds or is immediately adjacent to Routes 5/8/12 (Utica North-South Arterial). Specifically, analysis focused on the area bounded by State Street and Genesee Street on the East, Lenox Avenue on the West, Route 921B (Burrstone Road) on the South and Routes 5A/5S (Oriskany Boulevard) on the North. This area encompasses Tracts 201, 203, 209, 211.01 and 211.02 from the 2000 Census. The core project impact area has been defined by the boundaries of Census Tracts 209 and 211.01. See Figure 4.2 for a map of the analysis area. (1) Route number - NYS Routes 5, 8 & 12 and NYS Routes 5A and 5S. (2) Route name - The Utica North-South Arterial (3) SH C60-25 (includes the limits of the interchange on Routes 5A/5S) (4) Bridge Identification Numbers (BINs) and features crossed BIN 1002281 - Mainline Rte. 5/8/12 SB over Columbia St., Lafayette St., NYS Rte. 5A/5S BIN 1002282 - Mainline Rte. 5/8/12 NB over Columbia St., Lafayette St., NYS Rte. 5A/5S BIN 100228A - Rte. 5/8/12 SB Entrance Ramp over NYS Rte. 5A BIN 100228B - Rte. 5/8/12 NB Exit Ramp over NYS Rte. 5S (5) City of Utica (6) Oneida County (7) Length 0.8 mi (8) RM 5-2610-4026 To RM 5-2610-4034 (9) Other bridges within the project vicinity BIN 1002291 - Mainline Rte. 5/8/12 SB over CSX/AMTRAK BIN 1002292 - Mainline Rte. 5/8/12 NB over CSX/AMTRAK BIN 1073850 - Rte. 5/8/12 SB Exit Ramp over CSX/AMTRAK BIN 1073870 - Rte. 5/8/12 SB Exit Ramp over NYS Rte. 5A BIN 1073880 - Rte. 5/8/12 NB Exit and Entrance Ramp over NYS Rte. 5S

1-1

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

1-2

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

1-3

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed?

The viaduct was originally constructed in 1959 as a part of the construction of the Utica North South Arterial. This four lane divided highway currently carries in excess of 35,000 vehicles per day as it serves traffic traveling to and through the downtown Utica area. A major rehabilitation project in 1991 replaced the wearing surface and joints, upgraded guiderail and included concrete spall repairs on miscellaneous elements of the fascia and substructure. Only routine maintenance has been performed since. The most recent bridge inspections show that a number of viaduct components are reaching the end of their useful life and must be addressed if the structure is to remain open to the traveling public. The Federal Sufficiency Ratings for the two mainline bridges, BIN 1002281 and BIN 1002282 are 44.8 and 45.5, respectively. The General Recommendation ratings are 4 for both bridges. BIN 100228A has a Federal Sufficiency Rating of 62.6 and a General Recommendation of 4. BIN 100228B has a Federal Sufficiency Rating of 71.8 and a General Recommendation of 4. There are geometric elements in this section of Route 5/8/12 that do not meet current design standards. The existing horizontal curvature and related horizontal stopping sight distance as the roadway passes between the Fay Street Warehouse and the Mill Square building are non-standard. Route 5/8/12 throughout the project is curbed with a 1 ft. curb offset where current standards require a 10 ft. right shoulder and a 4 ft. left shoulder. Lane widths, grades and stopping sight distances are non standard elements within the Route 5/8/12/5A/5S interchange. These will all be evaluated as a part of this project. Any proposed work on Route 5A/5S will be limited to the extent necessary to address the various elements of the interchange. In addition to the viaduct needs, there is an identified need to improve highway user safety in the project area. Much of the project area is a high accident location with accidents particularly noted at the Court Street intersection located 500 feet south of the viaduct, the southbound entrance ramp (Ramp G) from Routes 5A/5S (Oriskany Boulevard) and at other ramp terminals in the interchange (Ramps I and K). (See Appendix A for a plan showing the ramp locations.) A number of pedestrian accidents have occurred with two fatalities within the three year accident study period from April 2004 to March 2007. A need to improve access and mobility has also been identified. Currently, restrictions on left turn movements at Court Street are necessary to maintain an acceptable arterial level of service and support regional mobility. However, these restrictions limit local access and mobility and lead to unpredictable and unsafe driving behaviors. Court Street is the major east-west route crossing the arterial. It carries 40-45% of the total traffic crossing the arterial at the five signalized intersections within the city limits. Access improvements to and from Court Street are needed to enhance neighborhood connectivity and are desirable to support economic development efforts in Utica. 1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project?

1: Eliminate Structural and Geometric Deficiencies in the Viaduct - Use treatment strategies to satisfy current geometric standards, provide the lowest life cycle maintenance costs, restore the bridge condition rating to 5, or greater, and to extend service life by 75 years. 2: Improve Pedestrian, Bicycle and Vehicular Safety - Safely accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access across the arterial to reduce the frequency of vehicle/pedestrian collisions to equal or below the statewide average rate and reduce the frequency of vehicular accidents to equal or below the statewide average rate. 3: Improve Access and Mobility – Provide infrastructure improvements to enhance access and mobility at Court Street and the surrounding area while maintaining traffic movement at Level of Service C or better for ETC+30 design hour volumes. 4: Improve Neighborhood Connectivity - Provide enhanced and safer pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access across the arterial. 5: Improve Aesthetic Appearance – Utilize design features, materials, and landscaping to create an attractive corridor and gateway into the City of Utica.

1-4

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered? Chapter 3 of this document discusses 5 main alternatives that were considered for achieving the objectives of this project. They were: 1) No Build 2) Rehabilitate the Viaduct 3) Replace the Viaduct on Existing Alignment 4) Replace the Viaduct on New Alignment with a New At-Grade Intersection at Court Street 5) Replace the Viaduct on New Alignment over Court Street. During the project scoping phase, #5, Replace the viaduct on new alignment over Court Street was determined to be the only feasible alternative. No other feasible alternatives were identified in the subsequent preliminary design phase. Under this alternative, the viaduct would be replaced on a new alignment and Route 5/8/12 will be carried over Court Street to create a grade separated interchange. In addition to eliminating the structural deficiencies of the viaduct, this alternative allows for geometric improvements such as the elimination of the non-standard horizontal curve and horizontal sight distance on mainline just north of Court Street and the creation of a southbound acceleration and auxiliary lane from Route 5A/5S. It eliminates conflicts between through traffic on Routes 5/8/12 and local traffic and pedestrians travelling along Court Street. It has been determined that three ramps will be provided at the new interchange (southbound exit ramp, southbound entrance ramp, and northbound exit ramp). Mobility and access will be greatly improved with the addition of a grade separated interchange at Court Street. This alternative meets all of the project objectives and is considered to be the preferred feasible alternative. A conceptual plan is shown on page 7. Detailed plans are provided in Appendix A.

The proposed horizontal alignment will shift the arterial to the west of its existing location between Court Street and Routes 5A/5S. The proposed vertical alignment of the arterial will begin to rise just north of the existing Warren Street intersection to carry the arterial over Court Street. New bridges will be constructed over Court Street, Columbia Street, Lafayette Street, and Routes 5A/5S. In between these bridges, the arterial will be supported by internally stabilized retaining walls consisting of a mechanically stabilized earth system (MSES).

Under this alternative, three different interchange types have been considered for the Court Street interchange (see conceptual plans on page 7):

 Tight diamond interchange with a roundabout at the ramp termini.  Tight diamond interchange with signalized intersections at the ramp termini,  Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI).

As discussed in Section 3.3.1.7, the SPUI will provide the best level of traffic operations for the interchange. The roundabout and the signalized tight diamond configurations will not be considered further as viable options because both options fail to provide acceptable levels of traffic operations. This alternative also includes the following elements:

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

construction of an acceleration lane at the terminus of the ramp from southbound Route 5/8/12 to westbound Route 5A (Ramp I) driveway improvements in the vicinity of the intersection of Sunset Avenue and Lincoln Avenue to preserve access for adjacent businesses the signalized intersections on the arterial at Sunset Avenue and Warren Street will be eliminated elimination of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Court Street. The northern terminus of Lincoln Avenue will be at State Street via Roberts Street. reconfiguration of the intersection of Cornelia Street and Route 5S with a new traffic signal (at the existing terminus of Ramp K).

The project also will include work at two sites to mitigate access and mobility impacts during construction. The first will be at the intersection of NYS Route 921B (Burrstone Road) and Route 5/8/12 northbound where Lincoln Ave. will be extended to meet Burrstone Road at a new traffic signal. This improvement will also have a permanent benefit of allowing Lincoln Avenue to function more as a frontage road enhancing mobility and access along the east side of the arterial. The second site will be at the northern terminus of NYS Route 921W (Champlin Avenue). Champlin Ave. will be extended a short distance north across the former gas station property to intersect directly with Route 5A. This connection also has a permanent benefit of connecting two state highways, eliminating a gap in the system, and enhancing regional mobility. Conceptual plans are shown on pages 8 and 9.

Multiple real estate purchases and relocations are necessary for this project. Details are included in Section 4.2.2 and in Appendix H.

For an in-depth discussion of the design criteria and nonstandard features see Section 3.2.3 of this report.

1-6

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

1-7

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

1-8

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

1-9

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

1.4 How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment?

Environmental Summary NEPA Classification Class III BY FHWA Date 9/05/08 SEQR Type Non Type II BY NYSDOT Date 2/21/07

Comparison of Design Options Court Street Interchange No Build Category Options Alternative Roundabout* Diamond* SPUI Wetland Impacts None None None None 100 Year Floodplain Impacts None None None None National Resister Eligible Architectural None 1 1 1 (NRE) Properties Impacted Archeological None 6 6 6 Construction Monitoring Sites None 19 19 19 Asbestos Assessments None Yes Yes Yes Phase II Hazardous/Contaminated Investigations None Yes Yes Yes Air Quality Impacts None None None None Noise (Category B Properties Impacted) 10 16 16 16 Forested Areas Impacted None None None None Section 4(f) Properties Impacted None 1 1 1 Commercial Displacements None 8 8 8 Residential Displacements (Number of Households) None 57 51 51 Farmland Impacts None None None None Threatened & Endangered Species Impacted None Yes Yes Yes Wild & Scenic River Impacts None None None None Water Resources Impacted None None None None Critical Environmental Areas Impacted None None None None *Note: The roundabout and the signalized tight diamond configurations have been dismissed as viable options because both options fail to provide acceptable levels of traffic operations.

Refer to Chapter 4 for mitigation measures that are proposed for this project.

Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination:

NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit (notice of intent to be submitted during detailed design) Floodplain Variance (the need for a variance is dependent on Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans developed during detailed design) Water Quality Certification (Sec 401) of the FWPCA (application to be submitted during detailed design)

USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 10 Nationwide Permit #3- Maintenance Activities in all Waters of the U.S. (application to be submitted during detailed design along with Water Quality Certification).

1-10

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Coordination Coordination with Federal Highway Administration for Section 4f and Section 106 (Section 106 completed) Coordination with New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) (completed) Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (completed) Coordination with the New York Natural Heritage Program (completed) Coordination with Oneida Herkimer Solid Waste Authority (building demolition debris disposal)

Certifications NYSDOL: Asbestos Variances (Licensed Designer Specifications/Notes)

1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedules?

The project costs and schedule are summarized as follows: Construction Cost Right of Way Cost  Roundabout Interchange at Court Street - $60.98M $6.65M  Diamond Interchange at Court Street - $58.72M $6.28M  Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) at Court Street - $62.02M $6.28M (The roundabout and the signalized tight diamond configurations have been dismissed as viable options because both options fail to provide acceptable levels of traffic operations.)

Exhibit 1.5 Project Schedule Activity Date Scoping Approval January 2009 Design Approval Fall 2011 ROW Acquisition Begins Fall 2011 Construction Start Early 2013 Construction Complete Fall 2017

The construction of this project is currently planned to be accomplished in three phases. See Exhibit 3.3.1.7-4 (Section 3.3.1.7(2)) for a detailed description and schedule of each construction phase.

1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred?

The feasible alternative that best meets the project objectives is Alternative 5 (Replace the viaduct on new alignment over Court Street). As discussed in Section 3.3.1.7, of the three interchange types considered at Court Street, the Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) will provide the best level of traffic operations for the interchange. The roundabout and the signalized tight diamond configurations will not be considered further as viable options because both options fail to provide acceptable levels of traffic operations. While Alternative 5 is identified as the preferred alternative, its final selection as the preferred alternative will not be made until after evaluation of its impacts, comments on the draft design approval document, and comments from the public hearing.

1.7. Who Will Decide Which Alternative Will Be Selected And How Can I Be Involved In This Decision?

Public involvement is a key component of project development providing the public and interested parties opportunities to be involved in the process. From the initial identification of project need, through scoping, design, construction, operation and maintenance, effective communications with project stakeholders ensures that the project:  Meets the transportation purpose and need  Is suited to its physical, environmental and community context 1-11

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

 Satisfies NEPA and SEQR environmental requirements  Has a budget and schedule that can be implemented

The Department of Transportation’s public involvement objectives in the project scoping and design phases have been to:

 Identify, confirm, and establish contact with project stakeholders  Establish awareness and understanding of transportation needs, project context, constraints, and stakeholder interests  Define the project purpose, need and objectives  Communicate the project development and decision making process  Solicit input to develop the project scope and potential alternatives  Seek consensus on a preferred alternative.

The Department has engaged in a very proactive outreach effort for this project employing several different tactics to initiate and sustain dialog with stakeholders during the project scoping and design phases. These efforts, including pre-scoping public involvement activities, are summarized in the project’s Public Involvement Plan (Appendix G). The plan also includes a list of stakeholder meetings held to date. The Department has been, and will continue to be, available to anyone seeking information or wishing to participate in the development of the project. The following public meetings have been held:  May 6, 2008 – A public Open House was held at Utica City Hall from 1:00pm to 5:00pm and from 6:00pm to 9:00pm to display the 5 alternatives and corresponding 15 design variations that were under review. Department staff were available to receive comments and answer questions.

 March 31, 2009 - Two Public Information Meetings were held to communicate to stakeholders the results of the project scoping phase. Alternative #5, with its three design variations at Court Street, was presented as the only feasible alternative identified during the scoping phase. These meetings were held at the Utica State Office Building from 1:00pm – 4:00pm and 6:00pm – 9:00pm. Formal presentations were given at 1:30pm and 6:30pm. Department staff were available to receive comments and answer questions.

The Utica North-South Arterial Corridor Concept Study (March 2007) and the Final Project Scoping Report (January 2009) are available for review on the project website at www.nysdot.gov/uticansviaduct. These documents provide additional background information and describe the results of the scoping process.

There are a variety of ways you can provide your thoughts. Please include the project identification Number (PIN) 2134.41 when referring to this project.

There will be a Public Hearing on September 27, 2011 where you can talk to Department representatives, give comments to a stenographer or leave written comments.

You can e-mail questions and comments to: [email protected]

You can visit the project’s website: www.NYSDOT.gov/Uticansviaduct

You can contact the Project Team Leader:

Brian Hoffmann, P.E. New York State Department of Transportation Region 2 Design Group 207 Genesee Street Utica, New York 13501 Telephone: (315) 793-5446

1-12

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

The deadline for submitting comments on this report circulation is October 14, 2011.

The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of the existing conditions, the proposed alternatives, the impacts of the alternatives, copies of technical reports and plans and other supporting information.

1-13

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS

This chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project site, including the existing conditions, deficiencies, and needs for this part of the Route 5/8/12 corridor.

2.1. Project History The viaduct was originally constructed in 1959 as a part of the construction of the Utica North South Arterial. This four lane divided highway currently carries in excess of 35,000 vehicles per day as it serves traffic traveling to and through the downtown Utica area. A major rehabilitation project in 1991 replaced the wearing surface and joints, upgraded guiderail and included concrete spall repairs on miscellaneous elements of the fascia and substructure. Only routine maintenance has been performed since.

For decades, the arterial has been studied because of high pedestrian and vehicle accident rates, mobility interests of regional travelers, access interests of residents and businesses, and Utica’s economic development efforts. More recently, the arterial was the subject of a study initiated in 2006 by Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study (HOCTS), which is the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in cooperation with the City of Utica and NYSDOT. The Utica North-South Arterial Corridor Concept Study, completed in March 2007, was intended to develop a conceptual plan and vision to improve the operation, safety, mobility and aesthetics of the arterial between the Burrstone Road interchange and the Route 5A/5S interchange. (This document is available on the project website at www.nysdot.gov/uticansviaduct.)

A significant public involvement effort was a part of the HOCTS study. Methods included formation of a Local Advisory Committee and various focus groups, hosting public outreach meetings, a project website and various events through the local media including radio, television and newspapers. The study concluded by recommending the Expressway Concept Plan as the “best means of improving the arterial’s safety and access and achieving the arterial’s community objectives”. This conceptual vision for the corridor included extending the viaduct over Court Street and providing some form of interchange at Court Street. Additionally, the need to address the deteriorated condition of the viaduct structure was discussed. Because a project to address the viaduct was already included in the HOCTS 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program, the final report suggested including some of the study recommendations, if appropriate.

NYSDOT Region 2 identified the need for this project primarily through the on-going bridge inspection program. In addition to the deteriorating structural condition of the viaduct, non-standard geometric features on the viaduct, safety concerns at the Court Street intersection and on several ramps, and mobility and access restrictions were identified. An Initial Project Proposal was approved by the NYSDOT Regional Director on February 2, 2005. The project was programmed by NYSDOT Region 2 and it was included in the HOCTS 5-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).

A Project Scoping Report was developed by NYSDOT Region 2 and it was approved by the Regional Director on January 27, 2009. This report documents the project’s purpose and need, objectives and it identified feasible solutions. (This document is available on the project website at www.nysdot.gov/uticansviaduct.) Public Involvement efforts and activities during the scoping phase are summarized in the Public Involvement Plan (Appendix G). The major outcomes of the scoping phase were presented at two Public Information Meetings held on May 6, 2009.

2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use 2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area

2.2.1.1. Local Plans - There are a number of local planning efforts taking place in the project study area. These include:

2-1 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

City of Utica Master Plan - The City of Utica is currently developing a Master Plan. The Master Plan development will begin with a focus on three areas of the city: Downtown, Brewery District and the Cornhill area. A draft version of the Master Plan was released for public review and comment on July 13, 2010. It still needs to be approved by the Utica City Common Council. A draft goal of the plan is to create inviting, friendly streetscapes, enhanced gateways and development of corridor plans. One strategy to accomplish this goal that is listed in the plan is to work with the New York State Department of Transportation to incorporate context sensitive solutions along the North-South Arterial. Consistent with this goal and strategy, elements included in the project are a dedicated pedestrian/bike trail adjacent to the corridor, historic lighting, street trees and landscaping, and opportunities to display public art.

City of Utica Combined Sewer Overflows Long-Term Control Plan – The City of Utica has recently developed a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) for Combined Sewer Overflows to comply with New York State water quality standards and Clean Water Act requirements. Coordination between the proposed viaduct project and proposed LTCP projects in the areas of State Street, Lincoln Avenue and Court Street will be necessary.

Brownfield Redevelopment - The former Bossert Manufacturing site, located outside of the project limits at 1002 Oswego Street, parallels the Utica North-South Arterial on the west. The City of Utica is currently seeking to redevelop the site. There are no specific development plans at this time.

Gateway Historic Canal District Revitalization Plan - The Gateway study area is bounded on the west by State Street and on the south by Columbia Street. The plan advocates for mixed-use development throughout the Gateway. Plan implementation has included improvements to the former Washington Courts/Goldbas public housing project site. This site is bounded by Water, Whitesboro, Potter and Seneca Streets. The site is currently being marketed. Given its size, full redevelopment of the site would likely impact traffic volumes on Route 5S and the North South Arterial. The estimated traffic volumes for future no-build and build conditions that were developed for the proposed North South Arterial project included a growth rate to account for potential future development within the City of Utica. NYSDOT will be an involved agency as part of the New York SEQR process for any land development project within the city that directly or indirectly impacts a State highway facility.

Lincoln Avenue Corridor – The Municipal Housing Authority of the City of Utica (UMHA) and it’s non-profit affiliate, Rebuild Mohawk Valley Inc., are proposing to construct seven housing units (single-family or four-bedroom townhouses) on the west side of Lincoln Avenue between Warren and Roberts Street. The project will also involve the construction of an access road in the rear of the project to allow for vehicle parking in basement garages designed as part of each home. A Phase I review and environmental assessment will be conducted on the site by the City of Utica as the SEQR lead agency.

The proposed Lincoln Avenue corridor housing sites are all located within a PDC (Planned Development Commercial) zoning district. The zoning was amended from residential to PDC by the Utica City Common Council in 2005 in advance of commercial development for the site which never occurred. Under the current zoning designation, residential development would not be permitted. The zoning would need to be changed back to a residential designation prior to development.

In April 2011, the City of Utica’s Department of Urban and Economic Development announced preliminary plans for 15 to 20 affordable apartment units for the same area.

Local Plans for Traffic Mitigation Sites:

Lincoln Ave./Burrstone Rd. – Currently, there are no local development plans for this area.

Route 5A/Champlin Ave. - Currently, there are no local development plans for this area.

2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans – There are no approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations. The project study area contains a moderate amount of private development. The following are potential projects:

2-2 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Irish American Cultural Center - Vacant land on the southeast corner of Huntington and Columbia Streets was identified as the prime location for the Center. Construction of the Center is currently underway. The $2 million project will construct a two-story building that will house a pub, kitchen, meeting rooms and office space ready for use in early 2012.

Brodock Press, Inc. – Brodock Press has made numerous renovations to their building on Court Street. Their goal is to increase tenancy in the building. However, vehicular and pedestrian access to existing parking has been problematic due to the current traffic patterns on Court Street, Lincoln Avenue and the North South Arterial. Improved access would provide enhanced opportunities for Brodock Press to lease available space in their building. Additional tenants, however, would generate increased traffic and create more parking concerns.

Private Development Plans for Traffic Mitigation Sites:

Lincoln Ave./Burrstone Rd. – Currently, there are no private development plans for this area.

Route 5A/Champlin Ave. - Currently, there are no private development plans for this area.

2.2.2. Transportation Corridor

2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment - The North South Arterial has local and regional significance. It is the highest volume roadway for the Utica and greater Mohawk Valley area. The facility also functions as a local road, providing access to and from adjacent city streets. The route also accommodates bicyclists and pedestrians who travel east-west for school, employment, and other services.

2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes – There are no suitable routes that could serve as a permanent detour or alternate route if no improvements are made to the viaduct. The best alternate route for through traffic over the state highway system would utilize NYS Routes 840 and 5A. There are a number of more local detour routes that would likely be employed by the drivers more familiar with the local system or who have local destinations. These include French Road and Champlin Ave, to Route 5A and Burrstone Road and Genesee Street to Route 5S. However, these routes will require initial improvements for use as possible temporary detour routes during construction to accommodate potential traffic. While there is some redundancy in the local area road network, no other facility could accommodate the anticipated levels of peak hour traffic through the corridor.

2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs – The restricted left-turn movements at Sunset Avenue, Warren Street and Court Street limit access and mobility within the project limits. When drivers, unpredictably, ignore these restrictions, there is an increased potential for accidents. Court Street is the primary east-west route across the arterial. It carries 40-45% of the total traffic crossing the arterial.

Transportation System Management (TSM) has been implemented in the form of a closed loop traffic signal system within the five signalized intersections of the arterial. Also, there is a permanent traffic count station located in the northbound lanes south of Oswego Street. Data is collected and used to monitor system performance of the arterial. The prohibition of turns at the above mentioned intersections is also considered to be a TSM measure as it increases capacity at those locations. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures have not been implemented in the project area.

TSM and TDM measures have not been implemented in either of the traffic mitigation areas.

There are no “rideshare” or carpool services operating in the project area.

2-3 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans –

Regional

Long-Range Plan - The project area is listed as a potential growth corridor in the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study (HOCTS) 2010-2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The Utica North-South Arterial Viaduct project addresses several of the goals and objectives outlined in the LRTP which include improving safety for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, improving highway and bridge infrastructure, and facilitating the movement of goods and services. The phased construction of this project is included in the LRTP.

Utica North-South Arterial Corridor Concept Study - The City of Utica, Oneida County, NYSDOT, and the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study (HOCTS) initiated the Utica North-South Arterial Corridor Study in 2006. The study’s intent was to develop a conceptual plan and vision to improve the operation, safety, mobility and aesthetics of the arterial. Additionally, the need to address the deteriorated condition of the viaduct structure was discussed. Because a project to address the viaduct was already included in the HOCTS 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program, the final report suggested including some of the study recommendations, if appropriate. Examples of the study recommendations included extending the viaduct over Court Street and providing some form of interchange at Court Street, development of parallel frontage roads, and creating a multi-use trail.

Transportation Improvement Program – Construction Phases I & II are on the approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as project numbers 2134.50 and 2134.41, respectively. Construction Phase III (PIN 2134.51) is currently programmed for letting in State fiscal year 2015/2016. See Exhibit 3.3.1.7-4 (Section 3.3.1.7(2)) for a detailed description of each construction phase.

State

NYSDOT Master Plan - The project scope is consistent with the goal for improving transportation mobility and reliability in NYSDOT’s “Strategies for a New Age: New York State’s Transportation Master Plan for 2030.” Additionally, Route 12 is identified as an important statewide corridor connecting the cities of Binghamton, Utica, and Watertown.

STIP - Construction Phases I & II are on the current STIP in State fiscal years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, respectively.

The project is not part of an approved Congestion Management System or adequate Interim Congestion Management System. The project is not subject to a Major Investment Study (MIS).

2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments – The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that there are no plans to reconstruct or widen the adjoining highway segments within the next 20 years.

Routes 5/8/12 immediately to the south of Sunset Avenue consists of a 4 lane, divided, curbed section with 12 foot lanes and a 1 foot curb offset on the left and right. Approximately one half mile further to the south the section widens to provide a 4 foot left shoulder and a 10 foot right shoulder.

Routes 5/8/12 to the north of the project is a 4 to 6 lane divided highway with full access control. Travel lanes are 12 feet wide with 10 foot right shoulders and 4 foot left shoulders. The next interchange is located 1 mile to the north of the project at I-790 and State Route 49.

Traffic Mitigation Sites:

Lincoln Ave./Burrstone Rd. - There are currently no approved plans to reconstruct or widen roads adjacent to the project area within the next 20 years.

2-4 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Route 5A/Champlin Ave. - There are currently no approved plans to reconstruct or widen roads adjacent to the project area within the next 20 years.

2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance

2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) – Exhibit 2.3.1.1 Functional Classification Data Within 1 Within the 16 National Designated Qualifying Mile of a ft. Vertical Functional Highway Truck Route(s) Highway Qualifying Clearance Classification System Access Highway Network (NHS) Route

Urban Principal Arterial Expressway 5/8/12 (South of Routes 5A/5S) Yes N/A Yes N/A No Urban Interstate (North of Routes 5A/5S) Urban Principal Arterial 5A No Yes No Yes No Other Urban Principal Arterial 5S Yes Yes No Yes No Other 921W (Champlin Urban Minor Arterial No No No No No Ave) 921B Urban Principal Arterial (Burrstone No No No Yes No Other Road) Court St., Urban Minor Arterial No No No Yes No State St. Lincoln Ave., Columbia St., Urban Collector No No No Yes No Lafayette St. Sunset Ave., Warren St., Urban Local No No No Yes No Fay St.

2.3.1.2. Control of Access – Routes 5/8/12 has partial control of access within the project limits. Access is not controlled on Routes 5A, 5S, 921B (Burrstone Road), 921W (Champlin Ave.) and all city streets listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.1.

2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices –

Exhibit 2.3.1.3a summarizes information about existing traffic signals located in the project area.

Exhibit 2.3.1.3a Existing Traffic Signals Location Controller Activation Coordinated Condition Owner Type Type (Y/N) NYS Model Route 5/8/12 & Sunset Ave. Semi-Actuated Yes Poor NYS 2070 NYS Model Route 5/8/12 & Warren St. Semi-Actuated Yes Poor NYS 2070 NYS Model Route 5/8/12 & Court St. Semi-Actuated Yes Poor NYS 2070 State St. & Court St. Mechanical Pre-timed No Poor City of Utica State St. & Columbia St. Mechanical Pre-timed No Poor City of Utica 2-5 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 2.3.1.3a Existing Traffic Signals Location Controller Activation Coordinated Condition Owner Type Type (Y/N) State St.& Lafayette St. Mechanical Pre-timed No Poor City of Utica NYS Model State St. & K Ramp Fully Actuated No Poor NYS 179 NYS Model Champlin Ave. & Whitesboro St. Fully Actuated No Fair NYS 179

The following traffic signals are in the vicinity of the project area and they are scheduled to be replaced in 2012 and 2013 under PIN 2805.15 (Signal Improvement Project 10):

Route 5A at Greenman Avenue Route 5A at Main Street Route 5A at 6th Street Route 5A at Whitesboro Street Route 5A at Jason Street Route 5A at Schuyler Street Routes 5/8/12 at Noyes Street Routes 5/8/12 at Oswego Street

These signals are in poor condition and have served beyond their useful lives. Where appropriate, the new signals will be equipped with preemption capability for emergency service vehicles. Though the replacement of these signals will provide independent operational and safety improvements, these same benefits will also be realized by highway users that may use the intersections during construction of the viaduct project.

Figures 2.3.1.3a and 2.3.1.3b show the location of existing overhead sign structures. Exhibit 2.3.1.3b summarizes information about the overhead sign structures. In general, the structures are functioning as originally designed with no apparent problems. The sign panels are in acceptable condition with some exhibiting minor loss of legibility due to dulled paint or loss of reflectorization.

2-6 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Figure 2.3.1.3a - Overhead Sign Structure Locations (Sunset Ave. to CSX Railroad)

Figure 2.3.1.3b - Overhead Sign Structure Locations (Burrstone Road Interchange)

2-7 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 2.3.1.3b Existing Overhead Sign Structures Sign Structure Structure Condition Sign Condition Structure Sign Text Type Rating & (Date) Rating & (Date) Number

(Northbound) 26002 Span 6 (May 2009) 6 (May 2009)

(Southbound)

26003 Span 5 (May 2009) 5 (May 2009)

(Southbound) 26004 Span 5 (May 2009) 7 (May 2009)

(Northbound)

26015 Cantilever 5 (May 2009) 5 (May 2009)

26016 Cantilever 5 (May 2009) 5 (May 2009)

26077 Span (Eastbound) 6 (March 2009) 6 (March 2009)

(Westbound)

26078 Span 6 (March 2009) 6 (March 2009)

26079 Cantilever 5 (March 2009) 6 (March 2009)

2-8 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 2.3.1.3b Existing Overhead Sign Structures Sign Structure Structure Condition Sign Condition Structure Sign Text Type Rating & (Date) Rating & (Date) Number

26080 Span 6 (March 2009) 5 (March 2009)

26081 Cantilever 6 (March 2009) 5 (March 2009)

26082 Span 6 (May 2009) 5 (May 2009)

26083 Span 6 (May 2009) 6 (May 2009)

26084 Span 6 (May 2009) 6 (May 2009)

26085 Span 6 (May 2009) 6 (May 2009)

26086 Span 6 (May 2009) 6 (May 2009)

Sign Structure Rating Scale Sign Panel Rating Scale 9 - Condition and/or existence unknown 7 - Sign panels are new or like-new. 8 - Does Not Apply 6 - Used to shade between ratings of 5 and 7. 7 - New condition. No apparent problems. 5 - There may be minor loss of legibility due to dulled paint 6 - Used to shade between ratings of 5 and 7. or loss of reflectorization. Graffiti, vandalism, or collision 5 - Minor deterioration, but functioning as originally damage, but not affecting legibility. Minor deterioration or designed. impact to connecting components. 4 - Used to shade between ratings of 3 and 5. 4 - Used to shade between ratings of 3 and 5. 3 - Serious deterioration, or not functioning as originally 3 - Signs are difficult to read for any reason. Significant designed. deterioration or impact damage to the sign panel and/or 2 - Used to shade between ratings of 1 and 3. connecting components. 1 - Totally deteriorated, or in failed condition. 2 - Used to shade between ratings of 1 and 3. 1 - Any collision damage or deterioration serious enough to threaten collapse, or separation of sign from structure.

All other existing ground mounted signs are in acceptable condition and conform to the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices guidelines and warrants for such devices.

2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – Existing ITS systems in operation in the project area include the closed loop signal system with central control for the five signalized intersections, countdown timers at all mainline pedestrian crossings, and the permanent traffic count station located south of Oswego Street. A video camera for traffic monitoring was recently placed at the Sunset Avenue intersection. Two permanent ground mounted variable message signs were installed on Routes 5/8/12 at locations to the north and south of the project area. This work was included in PIN 2804.91 (TSM-ITS Project 7) which was completed in Summer 2011.

2-9 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Needs for Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) and Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS) for a one mile segment of Routes 5/8/12 and its interchange with Routes 5S and 5A have been indentified. Components of these ITS systems are anticipated to be closed circuit video cameras (CCTV), roadway sensors and other support equipment. Infrastructure will also be needed to provide communications between these roadway components and the NYSDOT Region 2 Traffic Operations Center. The Regional ITS Coordinator was involved in identifying these needs during project scoping. See Section 3.3.1.4 for further discussion.

2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay -

Exhibit 2.3.1.5 Speed Data Court St., State St., Lincoln Ave., Route 5/8/12, Route 5/8/12, Champlin Columbia St., Burrstone Rd. Route Sunset Ave. Court St. to Route 5A Route 5S Ave. (Rte Lafayette St., (Rte 921 B) to Court St. CSX Railroad 921 W) Sunset Ave., Warren St., Fay St. Existing 40 MPH 55 MPH 40 MPH 30 MPH 30 MPH 30 MPH 40 MPH Speed Limit 43 MPH 48 MPH 39 MPH <30 MPH Operating Westbound Westbound Westbound 43 MPH 64 MPH (Intersection <30 MPH Speed 41 MPH 50 MPH 44 MPH (Hourly Speed (Hourly Speed Conditions (Intersection (Method Eastbound Eastbound Eastbound Count Study) Count Study) and Field Condition) Used) (Hourly Speed (Hourly Speed (Hourly Speed Observations) Count Study) Count Study) Count Study)

Travel Speed and Delay Runs for Existing Conditions and Travel Time and Delay Runs Estimates have not been determined because this is not a major highway capacity improvement project.

2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes - Refer to Appendix C of this report for traffic flow diagrams. The traffic data was obtained in 2008.

2.3.1.6. (1) Existing Traffic Volumes - Refer to Exhibit 2.3.1.6 for a summary of the traffic data. Peak hour turning movement volumes for intersections with identified accident problems, all major intersections, and major traffic generator driveways/entrances are included in Appendix C. Daily traffic on Routes 5/8/12 consists of approximately 7% trucks. The truck percentage of daily traffic on Routes 5A, 5S, 921B, 921W, Court St. and Lincoln Ave. is approximately 6%.

Exhibit 2.3.1.6 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes 2045 2009 (EXISTING) 2015 (ETC) LOCATION (ETC + 30) AADT DHV AADT DHV AADT DHV Rte. 5,8,12 (Sunset Ave. - Warren St.) 38,100 3945 40,200 4225 52,200 5445

Rte. 5,8,12 (Court St. – Rte. 5A/5S) 30,000 3455 31,800 3665 41,300 4765

Rte. 5,8,12 (Rte. 5A/5S – CSXT RR) 46,500 4730 49,200 5020 63,900 6535

Court St. (State St. – Rte. 5,8,12) 14,250 1285 15,100 1355 19,600 1760

Court St. (Schuyler St. – Rte. 5,8,12) 7100 540 7500 570 9750 745

Rte. 5A (Schuyler St. – Rte. 5,8,12) 21,750 2240 23,000 2355 29,900 3055

2-10 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 2.3.1.6 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes 2045 2009 (EXISTING) 2015 (ETC) LOCATION (ETC + 30) AADT DHV AADT DHV AADT DHV Rte. 5A (Utica City Line – Schuyler St.) 18100 2055 19,000 2160 24,500 2780

Rte 5S (Rte. 5,8,12 – Genesee St.) 20,650 2505 21,800 2630 28,300 3405

Ramp I (Rte. 5,8,12 SB – Rte. 5A WB) 3450 350 3650 375 4750 490

Ramp H (Rte. 5,8,12 SB – Rte. 5S EB) 4000 405 4250 430 5525 560

Ramp J (Rte. 5,8,12 SB – State St.) 2000 205 2120 215 2750 280

Ramp G (Rte. 5A EB – Rte. 5,8,12 SB) 290 40 310 45 400 60

Ramp K (Rte. 5A EB – State St.) 3950 385 4200 405 5450 530

Ramp B (Rte. 5S WB – Rte. 5,8,12 NB) 2825 340 3000 360 3900 470

Ramp K (State St. – Rte. 5S EB) 2850 330 3025 345 3950 445

Ramp G (Rte. 5S WB – Rte. 5,8,12 SB) 3530 360 3750 380 4875 490

Ramp E (Rte. 5,8,12 NB – Rte. 5A WB) 620 65 660 70 850 90

Ramp D (Rte. 5,8,12 NB – State St.) 2050 205 2200 215 2850 280

Ramp A (State St. – Rte. 5,8,12 NB) 5425 645 5750 685 7475 890 Rte. 921W/Champlin Ave (South of 10,600 1095 11,130 1150 14,310 1430 Whitesboro St.) Rte. 921B/Burrstone Road (at Routes 28,800 2850 30,240 2990 38,880 3850 5,8,12) Lincoln Ave. (Court St. – Warren St.) 4400 665 4620 710 5940 930

Lincoln Ave. (Warren St. – Oswego St.) 1800 270 1890 285 2430 375

Lincoln Ave. (Oswego St. – Newell St.) 700 105 735 110 945 140 Notes: AADT is the Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume. DHV is the Design Hour Volume. ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion

2.3.1.6. (2) Future no-build design year traffic volume forecasts – The Estimated Time of Completion (ETC)+30 design year was selected per PDM Appendix 5. Peak hour turning movement volumes for intersections with identified accident problems, all major intersections, & major traffic generator driveways/entrances for the design year(s) are included in Appendix C.

2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility

2.3.1.7. (1) Existing level of service and capacity analysis – Refer to Appendix C (Table A) of this report for existing level of service (LOS) and capacity analysis findings for the mainline arterial, major connecting links, all approaches of intersections and major traffic generator driveways/entrances within the project area.

The existing arterial and Court Street intersection operates at a satisfactory LOS B. However, this relatively high LOS is realized at the expense of local access and mobility because all left turns are prohibited. When drivers unpredictably ignore these restrictions, there is an increased potential for accidents. If left turns were permitted, the intersection LOS would be significantly degraded to failing 2-11 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

conditions. Court Street is the major east-west route crossing the arterial. It carries 40-45% of the total traffic crossing the arterial at the five signalized intersections within the city limits. Access improvements to and from Court Street are needed to enhance neighborhood connectivity and are desirable to support economic development efforts in Utica.

Both of the other mainline arterial intersections within the project limits, Sunset Avenue and Warren Street, operate at an unsatisfactory LOS F.

2.3.1.7. (2) Future no-action design year level of service – See Exhibit 2.3.1.7-1 for the future no-action design year level of service (LOS) on the mainline arterial. The future no-action design year (ETC+30) LOS at the arterial and Court Street intersection is LOS E. The arterial intersections at Sunset Avenue and Warren Street will both have a LOS F (See Exhibit 2.3.1.7-2). Refer to Appendix C (Table A) of this report for future no-action design year level of service (LOS) and capacity analysis findings for major connecting links, all approaches of intersections, and major traffic generator driveways/entrances within the project area.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7-1 Highway Design Year Level of Service Routes 5/8/12, From Oswego Street to Court Street YEAR Northbound LOS Southbound LOS Existing (2009) E D ETC (2015) E D ETC+20 (2035) F F ETC+30 (2045) F F

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7-2 Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec) YEAR EB WB NB SB OVERALL Intersection of Route 5/8/12 and Court Street ETC D(50.4) D(43.7) B(11.5) B(16.4) C(20.4) 2015 ETC+20 F(81.1) E(63.9) D(37.1) C(27.6) D(40.8) 2035 ETC+30 D(37.6) F(87.2) D(54.9) E(56.7) E(56.7) 2045 Intersection of Route 5/8/12 and Sunset Avenue ETC D(40.4) D(44.7) A(5.0) A(5.6) A(8.6) 2015 ETC+20 E(59.1) E(68.3) E(67.1) E(77.8) E(71.5) 2035 ETC+30 F(96.1) F(339.8) F(141.2) E(68.5) F(117.5) 2045 Intersection of Route 5/8/12 and Warren Street ETC C(20.6) F(115.8) F(81.5) B(11.3) E(57.3) 2015 ETC+20 B(17.0) F(125.1) F(256.2) E(78.5) F(174.0) 2035 ETC+30 C(25.4) F(218.2) F(290.0) F(110.2) F(212.2) 2045

2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis

Crash related information and crash experiences using NYSDOT Priority Investigation Location (PIL), Priority Investigation Intersection (PII), Highway Accident Location (HAL), and Safety Deficient List (SDL) lists were used to gather information for the safety analysis. These are statistical lists that provide the

2-12 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

accident information necessary to assess the safety conditions of the project area and provide findings related to traffic operations in the project area. Accident rates were calculated from these lists and compared to statewide accident rates for a similar facility. Accidents rates were based on a three year accident history between 2004 and 2007. After a review of some accidents in the more recent years, it was concluded that updated information from a more current three consecutive year period was not necessary as the crash history would reflect similar accident trends and experiences and would yield similar findings.

The actual calculated accident rate for the overall arterial was 3.10 Acc/MVM. The statewide rate was 1.21 Acc/MVM. The safety analysis focused on the section of the arterial comprised of the five (5) at grade intersections between Oswego Street and the south end of the viaduct as this section has the largest amounts of conflicting movements. In this area, approximately two-thirds of the crashes were rear end type crashes. One third were serious accidents resulting in personal injuries or fatalities. Approximately eight-seven percent (87%) occurred on the mainline arterial in either the northbound or southbound directions. Driver inattention during congested periods appears to be a predominant contributing factor. The summer months reflected the highest percentage of crashes (38%) as travel demand typically increases. Most of the crashes occurred during the 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM peak time of travel with another fourteen percent (14%) occurring between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM.

Rear-end accidents occurred most frequently at the intersection of Sunset Avenue due to improper mainline turning movements and the starting and stopping of traffic during daily peak travel periods. This intersection also had the highest number of total accidents (42) out of the five intersections between Oswego Street and the south end of the viaduct.

The Court Street intersection had the second highest number of total accidents (35). Nineteen (19) of the total were rear end accidents with seven (7) occurring in the southbound direction and twelve (12) occurring in the northbound direction. The existing non-standard horizontal curvature and stopping sight distance along the viaduct just north of Court Street may be contributing factors in the southbound rear end accidents.

Oswego Street had the second highest number of rear end accidents (29). Twenty three (23) of these rear end accidents, approximately 80%, occurred in the northbound direction.

At the Route 5A/5S interchange, thirteen rear end accidents occurred at or near the terminal of the southbound entrance ramp from westbound Route 5A (Ramp G). Eight rear end accidents occurred at or near the terminal of the eastbound entrance ramp from State Street (Ramp K). Many of the accidents can be attributed to the lack of an acceleration lane for traffic to enter and merge with through traffic. A large number of rear end accidents also occur at or near the terminal of the southbound exit ramp to westbound Route 5A (Ramp I). Forty three (43) rear end accidents occurred during a six year analysis period between 2001 and 2006. Many of the accidents can be attributed to the lack of an acceleration lane for traffic to enter Route 5A and merge with through traffic. No other significant accident patterns were identified on the other ramps in the interchange (Ramps A, B, D, E, H, and J).

In addition to high numbers of vehicular accidents, there is also a history of pedestrian fatalities within the project limits. Since 1987, there have been four (4) pedestrian fatalities. Of the two most recent fatalities, one occurred at the Court Street intersection in 2006 and the other occurred at the Warren Street intersection in 2004.

Refer to Appendix C for details of the crash history and the Highway Safety Investigation Report.

2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access - West Utica currently is covered by three fire stations and the only one west of the Arterial contains only an ambulance and engine. Fire and EMS responders from the Oneida Square station located on Park St. use Plant St. and Sunset Ave. to cross the Arterial into West Utica. Meanwhile, the third station, Central, is located on Bleecker Street which is what Lafayette Street becomes as it crosses Genesee Street. Lafayette Street is the main approach into West Utica for those emergency vehicles.

2-13 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

The Utica Police Department is located east of the Arterial on Oriskany Boulevard, between Cornelia St. and Broadway St. Lafayette Street is the main approach into West Utica for city police.

Interviews conducted with Utica fire and police administration officials during the HOCTS Utica North- South Arterial Corridor Concept Study also emphasized the importance of Court Street as a vital east- west route for emergency vehicles connecting fire and police stations with portions of their service area. Noyes Street was also cited as important, but to a lesser extent. “They noted particularly the difficulty and danger in getting north-south traffic facing a green light on the Arterial to stop when fire or police vehicles were approaching the busy Court Street intersection with sirens and flashing lights, as well as the difficulty in passing vehicles on Court Street at the intersection when they had stopped. Also noted was the lack of a shoulder on the Arterial, which made it impossible for vehicles to pull off the roadway, in case of an accident or vehicle breakdown. The lack of a shoulder made it difficult for police to enforce traffic regulations and impossible for emergency vehicles to pass stopped traffic and reach the scene of an incident.”

2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions – Parking is not permitted on Routes 5/8/12, 5A, 5S, Burrstone Road (Rte. 921B) or Champlin Ave. (Rte. 921W) within the project limits. On- street parking is permitted and regulated on the various city streets within the project area.

2.3.1.11. Lighting – There is highway lighting along Routes 5/8/12, 5A and 5S, 921B (Burrstone Road) and 921W (Champlin Ave.). The system along Routes 5/8/12 is in poor condition. There is high mast lighting for the Route 5/8/12 and Route 5A/5S interchange and is functional but its overall condition is unknown. The existing highway lighting is entirely owned and maintained by the City of Utica except at Champlin Ave. where it is owned and maintained by the Village of Yorkville. There are no known lighting deficiencies at Burrstone Road and at Champlin Avenue.

2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction –

Exhibit 2.3.1.11 Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction Part Feature(s) being Centerline Lane Highway Limits Agency Authority No. Maintained (miles) (miles) Pavement, Shoulders, Curbs, Drainage, Sunset Routes 5/8/12 Landscaping, Guiderail, 0.8 3.2 State Section 349 C 1 Avenue to (SH C60-25) Signals, Signs, Snow & Highway Law CSX Railroad Ice Control Lighting - - City Section 349 C & Entire Structure, Snow & 2 BIN 1002281 - - - State Section 10, Sub. Ice Control 25 Highway Law 3 BIN 1002282 - Same As Above - - State Same As Above 4 BIN 100228A - Same As Above - - State Same As Above 5 BIN 100228B - Same As Above - - State Same As Above Section 340 B 6 BIN 1073870 - Same As Above - - State Highway Law 7 BIN 1073880 - Same As Above - - State Same As Above Pavement, Shoulders, Curbs, Drainage, Section 340 B 8 Ramp A - Landscaping, Guiderail, 0.125 0.125 State Highway Law Signals, Signs, Snow & Ice Control 9 Ramp B - Same As Above 0.218 0.218 Sate Same As Above 10 Ramp C - Same As Above 0.028 0.028 State Same As Above 11 Ramp D - Same As Above 0.062 0.062 State Same As Above 12 Ramp E - Same As Above 0.268 0.357 State Same As Above 13 Ramp G - Same As Above 0.151 0.151 State Same As Above 14 Ramp H - Same As Above 0.236 0.356 State Same As Above 15 Ramp I - Same As Above 0.139 0.139 State Same As Above 16 Ramp J - Same As Above 0.052 0.052 State Same As Above 17 Ramp K - Same As Above 0.371 0.465 State Section 12 and 2-14 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 2.3.1.11 Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction Part Feature(s) being Centerline Lane Highway Limits Agency Authority No. Maintained (miles) (miles) 340 B Highway Law Pavement, Shoulders, Curbs, Drainage, Schuyler St. to Landscaping, Guiderail, 0.72 3.192 State Section 349 C 18 Route 5A/5S Cornelia St. Signals, Signs, Snow & Highway Law Ice Control Sidewalks, Lighting - - City Pavement, Shoulders, Curbs, Drainage, Lincoln Ave. Landscaping, Guiderail, Section 349 C 19 Sunset Avenue 0.15 0.3 City to McVean St. Signals, Signs, Highway Law Sidewalks, Lighting, Snow & Ice Control Lincoln Ave. 20 Warren Street Same As Above 0.1 0.2 City Same As Above to Sunset Ave. Huntington St. 21 Court Street Same As Above 0.13 0.26 City Same As Above to State St. Section 10, Court St. to 22 State Street Same As Above 0.27 0.54 City Subdivision 25 Ramp K Highway Law Section 10, Bristol St. to 23 Fay Street Same As Above 0.34 0.68 City Subdivision 25 LaFayette St. Highway Law Section 10, Newell St. to 24 Lincoln Avenue Same As Above 1.2 2.4 City Subdivision 25 Court St. Highway Law Pavement, Shoulders, Curbs, Drainage, Route 921B Section 349 C Intersection Landscaping, Guiderail, - - State 25 (Burrstone Highway Law Area Signals, Signs, Snow & Road) Ice Control Sidewalks, Lighting City Same As Above Entire Structure, Snow & 26 BIN 1054309 - - - State Same As Above Ice Control Pavement, Shoulders, Curbs, Drainage, 27 Ramp RAA - Landscaping, Guiderail, 0.215 0.204 State Same As Above Signs, Snow & Ice Control 28 Ramp RAB - Same As Above 0.268 0.262 State Same As Above 29 Ramp RBA - Same As Above 0.148 0.133 State Same As Above 30 Ramp RBB - Same As Above 0.151 0.130 State Same As Above Portion within 31 Nail Creek North/South Stream Channel - - State Same As Above Arterial ROW Pavement, Shoulders, Landscaping, Guiderail, Section 12 & 46 - - State Route 921W Signals, Signs, Snow & Highway Law Intersection 32 (Champlin Ice Control Area Avenue) Village Curbs, Drainage, Section 46 - - of Sidewalks, Lighting Highway Law Yorkville Pavement, Shoulders, Curbs, Drainage, Section 349 C Landscaping, Guiderail, - - State Intersection Highway Law 33 Route 5A Signals, Signs, Snow & Area Ice Control Section 349 C Sidewalks, Lighting - - City Highway Law Pavement, Shoulders, Curbs, Drainage, Village Intersection Section 10, Sub. 34 Whitesboro St. Landscaping, Guiderail, - - of Area 25 Highway Law Sidewalks, Lighting, Yorkville Signs, Snow & Ice

2-15 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 2.3.1.11 Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction Part Feature(s) being Centerline Lane Highway Limits Agency Authority No. Maintained (miles) (miles) Control Village W. Whitesboro Intersection Section 10, Sub. 35 Same As Above - - of St. Area 25 Highway Law Yorkville

See Appendix A for a maintenance location map.

2.3.2. Multimodal

2.3.2.1. Pedestrians – Pedestrians are prohibited by law from accessing Route 5/8/12 and its ramps. Crossing at intersections is allowed and pedestrians utilize sidewalks, crosswalks, refuge islands and pedestrian signals with countdown timers for their crossing activities. A pedestrian generator checklist is included in Appendix I.

A pedestrian survey was conducted at the arterial intersections on September 24, 2009 during the following time periods: 7:00am – 9:00am, 11:00 am – 1:00pm, and 2:00pm – 5:00pm. Exhibit 2.3.2.1 summarizes the survey findings. Court St. had the highest volume of pedestrians crossing the arterial. Warren St. and Sunset Ave. had nearly identical crossing volumes equating to the third highest. These two intersections also had the lowest percentage of pedestrians using the pedestrian signal call buttons. All of the intersections had high percentages of pedestrians crossing during gaps in traffic without the aid of pedestrian signals.

Exhibit 2.3.2.1 Existing Route 5/8/12 Pedestrian Eastbound & Westbound Crossings Total Crossing Peak Hour Peak 15 Min. Intersection Comments Volume Volume Volume Approximately 75% of pedestrians used call Court St. 236 54 26 button but, most crossed when there was a break in traffic. Approximately 20% of pedestrians used call Warren St. 140 31 15 button but, 80% crossed when there was a break in traffic. Approximately 25% of pedestrians used call Sunset Ave. 136 31 14 button but, most crossed when there was a break in traffic. Approximately 60% of pedestrians used call Noyes St. 169 40 19 button but, 50% crossed when there was a break in traffic. Approximately 60% of pedestrians used call Oswego St. 95 22 10 button but, 50% crossed when there was a break in traffic.

Questions related to pedestrian and bicycle activities were included in a community survey performed as part of a Community Impact Assessment. When asked how often residents get out in their neighborhood for a walk, jog or bicycle ride that takes them farther then one block away from their home, 40.8% of the survey respondents indicated a frequency of once a week or more while nearly 17% indicated several times a month. 17% responded never or almost never.

When residents were asked how often they or members of their household walk, jog, or bicycle across or beneath the North South Arterial, 60% of the survey respondents indicated rarely or never. Approximately 16% indicated daily or almost daily and 10% indicated several times a week. Nearly 73% indicated that children living in their household do not walk or bicycle across or beneath the North South Arterial when going to or from school.

2-16 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Court Street was selected by the most survey respondents (28.8%) as the street used most often to walk, jog, or bicycle across or beneath the North South Arterial. 20.5% indicated Columbia Street, 16.4% used Sunset Avenue and 15% used Warren Street.

Four pedestrian fatalities have occurred in the corridor since 1987. The two most recent fatalities occurred at the Warren St. intersection in 2004 and the Court St. intersection in 2006.

The condition of sidewalks on city streets is highly variable between satisfactory and poor. Compliance with ADA requirements is inconsistent.

Champlin Ave (Rte 921W)/ Rte 5A Presently, pedestrians utilize sidewalks and crosswalks on both sides of the street along Champlin Avenue and Whitesboro Street. A sidewalk is located on the north side of Route 5A. These sidewalks are in satisfactory condition.

Lincoln Ave/Burrstone Road (Rte 921B) Presently, pedestrians utilize sidewalks and crosswalks along Lincoln Avenue on both sides of the street. A sidewalk is located on the north side of Burrstone Road with marked crosswalks across the existing ramps to and from Routes 5/8/12. These sidewalks are in satisfactory condition.

2.3.2.2. Bicyclists – Bicycles are prohibited by law from accessing Route 5/8/12 or its ramps. Bicycles utilize the intersecting streets to cross at signalized intersections.

The Utica Loop A bike route follows Columbia St., Fay St. and Court St. (west of the arterial) within the project limits. Columbia St. and LaFayette St. are components of an on-road bike route link.

See Section 2.3.2.1 above for results of a community survey that included questions related to bicycle and pedestrian activity in the project area.

Champlin Ave (Rte 921W)/ Rte 5A Champlin Ave. serves as a connecting roadway to area bike routes. Route 5A is not part of any existing or proposed bike route. Bicyclists must share the travel lanes with motor vehicles on both roadways.

Lincoln Ave/Burrstone Road (Rte 921B) Neither Burrstone Road, nor Lincoln Ave., is a part of any existing or proposed bike route. Bicyclists must share the travel lanes with motor vehicles on both roadways.

2.3.2.3. Transit - Centro of Oneida provides public bus service for the City of Utica. The service in Utica provides transportation connecting the city and outlying areas Monday through Saturday. Most routes regularly converge simultaneously at the corner of Genesee & Bleecker Streets to allow easy transfers between routes. Many routes continue through downtown Utica to provide cross-town suburb-to-suburb service without the need to transfer (a one-seat ride). The follow bus routes run through and have stops within the project limits: Bus Route 25 - Utilizes Court St. and Lincoln Ave. Bus Route 11 – Utilizes Columbia St. and LaFayette St. Bus Route 111 – Utilizes Columbia St. and LaFayette St. Bus Route 20 - Utilizes Columbia St., LaFayette St., Varick St. and Court St. The City of Utica has plans for a new Multi Modal Transportation Center on Charlotte Street. The center will include a transfer station for Centro of Oneida and Birnie Bus Services. Construction is not anticipated to begin until 2011.

Champlin Ave (Rte 921W)/ Rte 5A Centro Bus route 11 traverses Whitesboro St. through the intersection of Champlin Ave.

Lincoln Ave/Burrstone Road (Rte 921B) Centro Bus routes 14 and 114 traverse along Burrstone Road.

2-17 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports - There are no airports, railroad stations or port entrances within the project limits.

2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) - There are no recreation areas within the project limits.

2.3.3. Infrastructure

2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section – See Typical Sections, Plans and Profile sheets in Appendix A. Appendix A also contains plans showing ramp designations within the project limits.

2.3.3.2.(1) Critical Design Elements – The following is a listing of existing nonstandard features based on minimum standards for capital projects found in Chapter 7 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual.

Exhibit 2.3.3.2(1)a Existing Non-Standard Geometric Design Elements for Routes 5/8/12 Related Element Standard Criteria Existing Conditions Accident History 1263 ft (@ e = 6.0%) Horizontal Curvature 1070 ft. Yes HDM Section 7.6, Exhibit 7-10 Stopping Sight Distance 475 ft Minimum 427 ft. Yes (Horizontal) HDM Section 7.6, Exhibit 7-10 Full approach width (38 ft.), but not less than AASHTOs Interstate Standards, Bridge Roadway Width 27 ft. No 2005 BM Sections 2-6 Exhibit 2-1 Left, 4.0 ft minimum, Left, 1 ft. Shoulder Width Right, 10 ft minimum, No Right, 1 ft. HDM Section 7.6, Exhibit 7-10 15 ft without rail; Along rail, use larger Horizontal Clearance of 4 ft or actual shoulder width 1 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.1.1. l AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and NYS HS 20 Inventory/Operating Ratings Design Permit Vehicle Structural Capacity BIN 1002281, 34 Tons/57 Tons No BM Section 2.6.1 (NYSDOT LRFD BIN 1002282, 36 Tons/61 Tons Bridge Design Specifications)

Exhibit 2.3.3.2(1)b Existing Non-Standard Geometric Design Elements for Routes 5/8/12 Ramps Related Element Ramp Standard Criteria Existing Conditions Accident History 22 ft., Case II Condition D B Varies 15 ft. to 16 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 26 ft., Case II Condition D E (1 Lane) 16 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 Lane Width 28 ft., Case II Condition D G 17 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 27 ft., Case II Condition D K Varies 22 ft. to 26 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 A Without curb, 3 ft left, 6 ft right 1.5 ft., Left No D With curb in urban areas, 2 ft. curb offset Varies 2’4” to 3’5”, Left No Shoulder Width J desirable 0 ft., Left No K HMD Section 2.7.5.2 C Exhibit 2-10 0 ft. Curb Offset, Left and Right No B 7.8% No Maximum 7% E 8% No Grade HDM Section 7.6, Exhibit 7-11 I 8% No

2-18 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 2.3.3.2(1)b Existing Non-Standard Geometric Design Elements for Routes 5/8/12 Ramps Related Element Ramp Standard Criteria Existing Conditions Accident History 6% Maximum HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G Superelevation For 600 ft. Radius & 30 MPH Design Speed, For 600 ft. Radius, existing e=3.0% K No Rate Required e=4.5% For 900 ft. Radius, existing e=2.4% For 900 ft. Radius & 30 MPH Design Speed, Required e= 3.8% B 146 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance) No D 160 ft. (@ 25 mph design speed) 143 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance) No Stopping Sight 200 ft. Minimum (@ 30 mph design speed) 138 ft. & 164 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance E No HDM Section 7.6, Exhibit 7-11 Distance) I 98 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance) No A 6 ft. min. right side, left side 3 ft. min. 1’6”, Left No Horizontal D Under structure additional 4 ft outside 2’4”, Left No Clearance J shoulders 0 ft., Left No K HDM Section 2.7.5.2 I 0 ft., Right and Left No BIN 100228A, 40 Tons/68 Tons E AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and NYS Design (HS 20 Inventory/Operating Ratings) No Structural Permit Vehicle Capacity BM Section 2.6.1 (NYSDOT LRFD Bridge BIN 100228B, 34 Tons/57 Tons G Design Specifications) (HS 20 Inventory/Operating Ratings) No

Exhibit 2.3.3.2(1)d Existing Non-Standard Geometric Design Elements for Route 921B (Burrstone Road) Ramps Related Element Ramp Standard Criteria Existing Conditions Accident History 38 ft., Case II Condition D AA 22 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 30 ft., Case II Condition D AB Varies 15 ft. to 22 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 Lane Width 42 ft., Case II Condition D BA 22 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 42 ft., Case II Condition D BB 22 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 144 ft. (@ 25 mph design speed) Horizontal BA 117.5 ft. No 231 ft. Minimum (@ 30 mph design speed) Curvature BB HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Exhibit 2-10 110 ft. No AA 6% Maximum Superelevation AB HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G All ramps, e max. = 6.25% (3/4”/ft.) No Rate BA

BB 160 ft. (@ 25 mph design speed) Stopping Sight BA 115 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance) No 200 ft. Minimum (@ 30 mph design speed) Distance BB HDM Section 7.6, Exhibit 7-11 121 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance) No

2.3.3.2.(2) Other Controlling Parameters - The following is a listing of existing non conforming features that do not comply with normally accepted engineering policy or practice.

There is a yield condition with approximately 600 feet provided for acceleration on the southbound entrance ramp (Ramp G) from Route 5A/5S. Current practice requires a parallel acceleration lane 1020 feet in length. This non-conforming feature has a related history of rear end accidents. There is a yield condition on the southbound Route 5/8/12 ramp (Ramp I) to westbound Route 5A/5S with no provision for acceleration. Current practice using a taper type entrance terminal

2-19 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

requires 450 feet for acceleration. This non-conforming feature has a related history of rear end accidents. There is a yield condition with approximately 250 feet provided for acceleration on the westbound entrance ramp (Ramp BB) from Burrstone Road (Route 921B) to northbound Route 5/8/12. Current practice requires a parallel acceleration lane 1200 feet in length. This non-conforming feature has a related history of rear end accidents. The distance (weaving) between Ramps AA and BA (successive entrance and exist ramps) at the Burrstone Road (Route 921B) interchange is approximately 600 feet. This is less than the recommended distance of 1600 feet. This non-conforming feature does not have a related accident history.

2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder - A Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) is not required for this project because it is less than one center line mile in length.

Routes 5/8/12 - The pavement condition rating is 7–8 (Good condition with distress symptoms beginning to show). The last work performed on this section was a 40 mm (1 ½ in.) single course mill and fill in 2006. The surface is now showing signs of distress (cracking) likely due to the failure of the underlying PCC pavement. During the 2006 work the underlying PCC pavement was observed to be in a severe state of deterioration. The cause of failure is due to the age of the underlying PCC pavement. This will cause premature failure of the overlay.

Routes 5A/5S - The pavement condition rating is 8 – 9 (Excellent to good condition with no or minimal distress). The last work performed on this section was a 40 mm (1 ½ in.) single course mill and fill in 2005. This was the only work done since the section was built in 1987. It is in excellent condition and is showing no signs of distress.

Champlin Ave (Rte 921W) - The pavement condition rating is 7 (Good condition with distress symptoms beginning to show). The last work performed on this section was single course hot mix asphalt resurfacing in 1995.

Burrstone Road Rte (921B) - The pavement condition rating is 7 (Good condition with distress symptoms beginning to show). The last work performed on this section was hot mix asphalt resurfacing in 1999.

2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems – The existing NYSDOT highway storm drainage system is divided into four drainage areas and is primarily a closed system consisting of concrete and brick drainage structures connected by reinforced concrete pipe. The existing drainage system is aged and deteriorated throughout the project limits, including the mitigation sites, and is in need of replacement. Some flooding occurs in the vicinity of Court Street. Further investigation is needed to determine if the flooding is caused by undersized or plugged pipes.

1. South of Sunset Avenue – The closed drainage system along the arterial drains into the Nail Creek Culvert. The Nail Creek culvert is a composite of various large culvert types (Concrete Box, Pipe Arches) and sizes. The pipe arch (11’ wide by 7’ high (approx.)) was installed just south of Sunset Avenue as part of the construction of the arterial and viaduct (c. 1960). The majority of the box culverts predate the arterial construction. This combined sanitary/storm system drains the West Utica area and outlets into the Mohawk River. Multiple contracts have been developed by the City downstream of this point to separate the two flows.

2. Sunset Avenue to Warren Street – The closed drainage system in this area flows back south to a 60” sewer which continues down Sunset Ave.

3. Warren Street to Oriskany Boulevard - The highway’s closed drainage system runs into a 24” trunk line on the east side of the arterial. This trunk line increases in size to 30” and 36” as it moves to the west side just north of Court Street where the existing viaduct scuppers tie into it.

2-20 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

4. Oriskany Boulevard Interchange - The interchange was built in the mid to late 1980’s under the one of the Utica-Marcy-Deerfield projects (MUD 7). It was the last contract to construct I-790 in the Utica area. As part of the reconstruction of the interchange, a 42” trunk line capturing the Warren Street to Oriskany Boulevard drainage (3. above) was included with a system picking up some of the new ramp drainage. This system eventually ties into the original Nail Creek culvert and outlets at the Mohawk River.

The city maintains closed drainage systems along the city streets in the project area. The only open channels in the area are found north of Oriskany Boulevard in the interchange area. The city has recently developed a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) for Combined Sewer Overflows to comply with New York State water quality standards and Clean Water Act requirements. Coordination between the proposed viaduct project and proposed LTCP projects in the areas of State Street, Lincoln Avenue and Court Street will be necessary.

2.3.3.5. Geotechnical – There are no special geotechnical concerns with any existing soils or rock slopes within the project area.

2.3.3.6. Structures

2.3.3.6.1 – Bridge Identification Number 1002281

2.3.3.6.1(1) Description (a) BIN - 1002281 (b) Feature carried and crossed – Carries Routes 5/8/12 southbound and crosses Columbia St., LaFayette St. and Routes 5A/5S. (c) Type of bridge, number and length of spans – This bridge is a simple composite steel multi- girder structure on concrete abutments and rigid frame piers. There are 19 spans for a total length of 1260 ft. Both stub type abutments and approximately fifty percent of the piers are shared with a similar parallel structure (BIN 1002282). All the substructure units are on piles. A 4 span ramp bridge (BIN 100228A) meets this bridge at span number 15. (d) Width of travel lanes, parking lanes, and shoulders - Two 12 ft. travel lanes, no parking lanes, 1ft. left curb offset and a 2 ft. right curb offset (e) Sidewalks – There are no sidewalks on this structure. (f) Utilities carried – Electric (visible)

2.3.3.6.1(2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) Carried - Total horizontal clearance is 27 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is16’-8” Crossed (Columbia Street) - Total horizontal clearance is 38 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 14’-5”. Crossed (LaFayette Street) - Total horizontal clearance is 35 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 18’-10”. Crossed (Route 5S) - Total horizontal clearance is 38.3 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 17’- 7”.

2.3.3.6.1(3) History & Deficiencies – As discussed in the project history, the bridge was built in 1960 and rehabilitated in 1991. The structure has nonstandard shoulder widths and encompasses a non standard horizontal curve. It also does not accommodate an acceleration lane for the southbound entrance ramp from Routes 5A/5S.

2.3.3.6.1(4) Inspection – 6/30/2009 (a) Federal Sufficiency Rating – 44.8 (b) State Condition Rating – 3.938 (c) Summary of Condition and Inspection Reports - The steel bearings on all eighteen piers are heavily corroded with most having crevice corrosion that interferes with bearing rotation and movement. All of the piers have bearings

2-21 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

rated 3 or less. Ratings of 3 and less indicate serious deterioration or not functioning as originally designed.

All 18 piers have pedestals rated 3 or less due to concrete cracks, spalls (with exposed and corroded reinforcement), and hollow sounds when struck with a hammer. Over 75% of the pier cap beams have cracks, spalls, and delaminated concrete between 40% and 75% of their surface area and are rated 4. Approximately 50% of the piers have at least one column (two piers have all columns) with deterioration including cracks, cracks with rust, delaminations, and/or spalls. These pier columns are rated between 3 and 5. These ratings indicate deterioration between minor and serious but continues to function as designed.

Abutment bearings and pedestals have similar deteriorated conditions as those elements on the piers. Most of the deterioration is the direct result of the deck joints deteriorating and leaking on the elements underneath them. The 18 joints are rated between 3 and 5.

2.3.3.6.1(5) Restrictions – There are no restrictions on this bridge.

2.3.3.6.1(6) Future Conditions – The NYS Condition Rating for this structure based on the 6/30/2009 inspection is 3.938. The condition rating based on the Bridge Needs Assessment Model (BNAM) is 3.658 at the estimated time of completion (ETC) in 2015, and 1.093 at ETC+30 years.

2.3.3.6.1(7) Waterway – This structure does not cross a waterway.

2.3.3.6.2 - Bridge Identification Number 1002282

2.3.3.6.2(1) Description (a) BIN - 1002282 (b) Feature carried and crossed – Carries Routes 5/8/12 northbound and crosses Columbia St., LaFayette St. and Routes 5A/5S. (c) Type of bridge, number and length of spans, etc. – This bridge is a simple composite steel multi-girder structure on concrete abutments and rigid frame piers. There are 18 spans for a total length of 1260 ft. Both stub type abutments and approximately fifty percent of the piers are shared with a similar parallel structure (BIN 1002281). All the substructure units are on piles. A 4 span ramp bridge (BIN 100228B) meets this bridge at span number 15. (d) Width of travel lanes, parking lanes, and shoulders – Two 12 ft. travel lanes, no parking lanes, 1ft. left curb offset and a 2 ft. right curb offset (e) Sidewalks – There are no sidewalks on this structure. (f) Utilities carried – Electric (visible)

2.3.3.6.2(2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) Carried - Total horizontal clearance is 27 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 18 ft. Crossed (Columbia Street) - Total horizontal Clearance is 38 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 15’-9”. Crossed (LaFayette Street) - Total horizontal clearance is 35 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 19’-6”. Crossed (Route 5S) - Total horizontal clearance is 39 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 18’- 3”.

2.3.3.6.2(3) History & Deficiencies – As discussed in the project history, the bridge was built in 1960 and rehabilitated in 1991. The structure has nonstandard shoulder widths and encompasses a non standard horizontal curve. It also does not accommodate a deceleration lane for the northbound exit ramp to Routes 5A/5S.

2.3.3.6.2(4) Inspection – 4/20/2009 (a) Federal Sufficiency Rating – 45.5

2-22 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

(b) State Condition Rating – 4.438 (c) Summary of Condition and Inspection Reports – The steel bearings on all seventeen piers are heavily corroded with most having crevice corrosion that interferes with bearing rotation and movement. Fifteen of the 17 piers have bearings rated 3 with the remaining rated 4. Ratings of 3 and less indicate serious deterioration or not functioning as originally designed.

Fifteen of 17 piers have pedestals rated 3 due to concrete cracks, spalls (with exposed and corroded reinforcement), and hollow sounds when struck with a hammer. About 35% of the pier cap beams have cracks, spalls, and delaminated concrete between 25% and 60% of their surface area and most are rated 4. Approximately 50% of the piers have at least one column (four piers have all columns) with deterioration including vertical cracks, delaminations, and/or spalls with exposed reinforcement. These pier columns are rated 4. A rating of 4 indicates deterioration between minor and serious but, continues to function as designed.

2.3.3.6.2(5) Restrictions – There are no restrictions on this bridge.

2.3.3.6.2(6) Future Conditions – The NYS Condition Rating for this structure based on the 4/20/2009 inspection is 4.438. The condition rating based on the Bridge Needs Assessment Model (BNAM) is 4.041 at the estimated time of completion (ETC) in 2015, and 1.862 at ETC+30 years.

2.3.3.6.2(7) Waterway – This structure does not cross a waterway.

2.3.3.6.3 – Bridge Identification Number 100228A

2.3.3.6.3(1) Description (a) BIN – 100228A (b) Feature carried and crossed – Carries Routes 5/8/12 southbound entrance ramp and crosses Routes 5A/5S. (c) Type of bridge, number and length of spans, etc. – 4 span, simple composite steel multi-girder structure 332 ft. in length on a concrete abutment and rigid frame piers. All the substructure units are on piles. This bridge meets another bridge (BIN 1002281) at its 15th span. (d) Width of travel lanes, parking lanes, and shoulders – one lane with a total curb to curb width of 20 ft. (e) Sidewalks – There are no sidewalks on this structure. (f) Utilities carried – Electric (visible)

2.3.3.6.3(2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) Carried - Total horizontal clearance is 20 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 99 ft. Crossed - Total horizontal clearance is 37.8 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 15’-3”.

2.3.3.6.3(3) History & Deficiencies – As discussed in the project history, the bridge was built in 1960 and rehabilitated in 1991. The structure has nonstandard shoulder widths.

2.3.3.6.3(4) Inspection – 6/26/2009 (a) Federal Sufficiency Rating – 62.6 (b) State Condition Rating – 4.203 (c) Summary of Condition and Inspection Reports - The steel bearings on the beginning abutment and all three piers are heavily corroded with most having crevice corrosion that interferes with bearing movement and rotation. Two of the bearings on the beginning abutment also have

2-23 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

missing anchor. All of the piers have bearings rated 3 or less. The steel bearings on the beginning abutment are rated 2. Ratings of 3 and less indicate serious deterioration or not functioning as originally designed.

The piers have pedestals with open cracks, cracks with rust stains, and small spalls with exposed reinforcement. The beginning abutment has two pedestals deteriorated to the point where they are no longer providing full bearing under the steel masonry plates of the bearing assemblies. These pedestals are rated 3 or less. The columns and cap beams of the three piers have varying amounts of concrete deterioration including cracks, hollow sounding areas when struck, and rust stains. Typical ratings are 4. A rating of 4 indicates deterioration between minor and serious but, continues to function as designed.

Fifty percent of the structural deck has signs of cracking and leakage that has resulted in a 4 rating. Other elements rated 4 include pedestals and concrete backwall at the end abutment. Two deck joints are rated 2 and the third is rated 5.

2.3.3.6.3(5) Restrictions – There are no restrictions on this bridge.

2.3.3.6.3(6) Future Conditions – The NYS Condition Rating for this structure based on the 6/26/2009 inspection is 4.203. The condition rating based on the Bridge Needs Assessment Model (BNAM) is 3.774 at the estimated time of completion (ETC) in 2015, and 1.326 at ETC+30 years.

2.3.3.6.3(7) Waterways – This structure does not cross a waterway.

2.3.3.6.4 – Bridge number 100228B

2.3.3.6.4(1) Description (a) BIN – 100228B (b) Feature carried and crossed – Carries Routes 5/8/12 and crosses Routes 5A/5S (c) Type of bridge, number and length of spans, etc. – 3 span simple composite steel multi-girder structure on a concrete abutment and rigid frame piers. This bridge meets another bridge (BIN 1002282) at its 15th span. All the substructure units are on piles. (d) Width of travel lanes, parking lanes, and shoulders – The superstructure carries one 10 ft. lane with a 20’ curb-to-curb width. (e) Sidewalks – There are no sidewalks on this structure. (f) Utilities carried – Electric (visible)

2.3.3.6.4(2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) Carried - Total horizontal clearance is 20 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 99 ft. Crossed - Total horizontal clearance is 28 ft. Minimum vertical clearance is 17 ft.

2.3.3.6.4(3) History & Deficiencies – As discussed in the project history, the bridge was built in 1960 and rehabilitated in 1991. The structure has nonstandard shoulder widths.

2.3.3.6.4(4) Inspection – 6/12/2009 (a) Federal Sufficiency Rating – 71.8 (b) State Condition Rating – 4.516 (c) Summary of Condition and Inspection Reports - The steel bearings on both piers and the beginning abutment are rated 3 and are heavily corroded with most having crevice corrosion that interferes with bearing movement and rotation. Ratings of 3 and less indicate serious deterioration or not functioning as originally designed.

The piers and the abutments have pedestals with cracks, spalls, and spalls with exposed reinforcement. All of these elements are rated 4 or less. The cap beam of one of the piers has concrete deterioration at the ends and on the soffit in the form of cracks. Rating is 4.

2-24 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Other elements rated 4 or less include bearings on the end abutment and the deck joints.

2.3.3.6.4(5) Restrictions – There are no restrictions on this bridge.

2.3.3.6.4(6) Future Conditions – The NYS Condition Rating for this structure based on the 6/12/2009 inspection is 4.516. The condition rating based on the Bridge Needs Assessment Model (BNAM) is 4.086 at the estimated time of completion (ETC) in 2015, and 2.991 at ETC+30 years.

2.3.3.6.4(7) Waterway – This structure does not cross a waterway.

2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts – There are no bridges or culverts over waterways within the project limits.

2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators – The existing galvanized steel 2-rail bridge railing system was upgraded in 1989 to current standards and is presently in good condition with only localized and minor deterioration. The entire system, including the approach transitions, is rated 6 and 5.

There is a median barrier on Routes 5/8/12 which runs the length of the project and continues for miles beyond the project limits. The median barrier is box beam at the beginning of the project near Sunset Avenue and transitions to concrete median barrier at the northern abutment of BINs 1002281 and 1002282. The box beam median barrier was installed in 1973 within the project limits under Contract FTP 72-21. Most of the box beam guiderail within the project limits was installed in 1986 under Contract D500427.

An impact attenuator consisting of a sand barrel array is located in the gore between Routes 5/8/12 mainline northbound and the exit ramp to Routes 5A/5S.

Box beam guiderail and median barrier exist on the ramps at the Route 921B (Burrstone Road) interchange with Northbound Routes 5/8/12. These elements were installed in 1975 and 1976 under Contract FAC 72-3.

Exhibit 2.3.3.8 Existing Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators Location Approx. Type Side Condition (Sta. to Sta.) Length Routes 5/8/12 Box Beam Median Barrier EB 180+00 to 184+65 Center 465’ Poor Box Beam Median Barrier EB 185+45 to 196+35 Center 1090’ Poor Box Beam Median Barrier EB 197+35 to EC 219+70 Center 2230’ Poor Box Beam EB 197+70 to EC 202+38 Rt. 463’ Poor Box Beam EB 199+52 to EC 202+38 Lt. 281’ Poor Box Beam EC 215+00 to EC 220+00 Rt. & Lt. 1000’ Poor 2-Rail Bridge Rail (Viaduct) EC 202+38 to 215+00 Rt. & Lt. 3394’ Fair Routes 5A/5S Box Beam EB 20+45 to 22+00 Rt. 155’ Good Box Beam EB 23+85 to 25+10 Lt. 125’ Good Box Beam EB 24+25 to 25+25 Rt. 100’ Good Concrete Barrier EB 25+10 to 26+95 Lt. 185’ Good Concrete Barrier EB 25+25 to 27+00 Rt. 175’ Good Box Beam EB 26+95 to 32+06 Lt. 511’ Good Box Beam EB 32+80 to 34+70 Rt. 190’ Good Box Beam WB 19+80 to 20+10 Lt. 30’ Good

2-25 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 2.3.3.8 Existing Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators Location Approx. Type Side Condition (Sta. to Sta.) Length Box Beam WB 22+40 to 27+92 Lt. 552’ Good Concrete Barrier WB 25+10 to 26+97 Rt. 187’ Good Box Beam WB 26+97 to 32+10 Rt. 513’ Good WB 33+30 to 35+00 Concrete Barrier Lt. 170’ Good End Sta. for “B” ramp to POE for WB Ramp A Box Beam A 18+15 to 20+20 Lt. 205’ Good Concrete Median Barrier SS 18+26 to A 18+76 Lt. 195’ Good Concrete Barrier A 18+76 to 24+72 Lt. 596’ Good Bridge Rail SS 18+10 to A 18+05 Rt. 145’ Good Bridge Rail SS 18+15 to A 18+15 Lt. 145’ Good Ramp B Concrete Barrier B 15+14 to 23+21 Rt. 807’ Good Ramp C Box Beam C 11+00 to 11+30 Lt. 30’ Good Ramp D Concrete Barrier D 11+13 to 12+60 Lt. 147’ Good Box Beam D 11+82 to 13+07 Rt. 125’ Good Box Beam D 8+66 to 11+14 Lt. 248’ Good Ramp E Box Beam E 9+81 to 11+30 Rt. 149’ Good Box Beam E 9+81 to 13+90 Lt. 409’ Good Ramp G Box Beam G 15+80 to 18+22 Rt. 242’ Good Box Beam G 16+70 to 18+22 Lt. 152’ Good Ramp H Concrete Barrier H 40+50 to 45+00 Lt. 450’ Good Concrete Barrier H 42+95 to 45+00 Rt. 205’ Good Box Beam H 31+67 to 36+70 Lt. 503’ Good Box Beam H 35+30 to 36+70 Rt. 140’ Good Ramp I Box Beam I 9+80 to 17+70 Rt. 790’ Good Ramp J Concrete Barrier J 9+99 to 11+35 Rt. 136’ Good Concrete Barrier J 12+70 to K 21+60 Lt. 212’ Good Ramp K Box Beam k 14+60 to 17+55 Lt. 295’ Good Box Beam K 16+20 to 17+43 Rt. 123’ Good Concrete Barrier K 17+43 to 19+73 Rt. 230’ Good Box Beam K 25+70 to 28+10 Lt. 240’ Good Lincoln Ave. /Route 921 B (Burrstone Road) Mitigation site Box Beam RAA 13+60 to RAA 23+41 Lt. 981’ Good Box Beam RAB 10+30 to 15+55 Lt. 527’ Good Box Beam RAB 0+91 to RAB 12+26 Rt. 1135’ Good Box Beam RBA 10+00 to RBA 12+00 Rt. 200’ Good Box Beam Median Barrier RBB 12+61 to RBB 17+95 Center 534’ Good Box Beam Median Barrier RAA 13+60 to RAB 21+07 Center 756’ Good

2-26 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

2.3.3.9. Utilities – Typical of cities in the Northeast, Utica’s existing infrastructure is old and needs repair. NYSDOT, Utility Company and City record plans are the main source of information for this summary. However, the Department has utilized “Dig Safely NY” to locate the various utilities in the project area and NYSDOT Survey forces have incorporated this information into the project mapping files. After potential impacts are determined, test pits will be used to obtain more accurate location information.

County and City-owned Utilities

Sanitary Sewer – With the exception of streets crossing the arterial, the city’s sanitary system does not lie within NYSDOT right of way. It exists along every city street with multiple lines running down some of the major streets. Some combined storm/sanitary systems exist with NYSDOT storm drainage pipes tied into some of them. Reconstruction of city streets will require reconstruction of sanitary sewers.

The City of Utica has recently developed a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) for Combined Sewer Overflows to comply with New York State water quality standards and Clean Water Act requirements. Coordination between the proposed viaduct project and proposed LTCP projects in the areas of State Street, Lincoln Avenue and Court Street will be necessary.

Oneida County has a 30” sanitary force main running along the north side of the railroad tracks at the north end of the Oriskany Boulevard interchange. At this time, no impacts to this force main are anticipated.

Private and Semi-Private Utilities

Water – At a minimum, 6” diameter waterlines run down all city streets. There are few crossings under the arterial and in general, the diameters are larger. These pipes cross at Burrstone Road (8” & 12”), Noyes Street (20”), Sunset (6”), Roberts Street (6”), Court Street (8”) and Columbia Street (10”). The Court Street crossing and the 8” line at Burrstone Road are currently shut off due to the inability to repair leaks in the line. The restoration of these waterlines is a high priority for the Mohawk Valley Water Authority (MVWA).

National Grid Natural Gas – Gas lines run down all the city streets. Most are low pressure with a few medium.

There are crossings with casings under the Arterial at the following streets:

Sunset Ave- 8” medium pressure with 12” casing pipe and 12” low pressure with 16” casing pipe A pressure regulator is also situated in this area.

Warren Street- 2” medium pressure with 12” casing pipe Roberts Street- 8” low pressure with 12” casing pipe Court Street- 8” low pressure with 12” casing pipe Columbia Street- 4” medium pressure with 6” casing pipe Lafayette Street- 2” medium pressure with 6” casing pipe

A 4” low pressure line runs along Fay Street between Bristol Street and Lafayette Street.

Along Oriskany Boulevard there is an 8” medium pressure line. It runs under Oriskany Boulevard to just west of the 5/8/12 SB off-ramp. From there it turns north, then east to run along the south side of the railroad tracks. Once beyond the northbound on-ramp from State Street, the main continues down Water Street on the north side of the Utica Auditorium. No casing pipe is shown for this line. This line may be impacted by any work done on this project to the Route 5/8/12 SB off-ramp.

A 12” high pressure main runs along the north side of the railroad tracks at the north end of the Oriskany Boulevard interchange. No impact to this main is anticipated. This main is in close proximity to the Oneida County sanitary force main.

2-27 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

National Grid Electric– As is typical, National Grid Electric has overhead facilities along city streets with some underground along major corridors.

Time Warner Cable – As is typical, Time Warner has overhead facilities along city streets.

AT&T – This is buried along the railroad corridor at the north end of the project. No impacts are anticipated.

Sprint – This is buried along the railroad corridor at the north end of the project. No impacts are anticipated.

Verizon – As is typical, Verizon has overhead facilities along city streets with some underground along major corridors.

Faxton-St. Luke’s Fiber Optic – The two health care facilities have recently installed a fiber optic line in the area. It is overhead in most areas and possible underground at bridge crossings. Some of this line may be on Lincoln Avenue near the Faxton Campus (on east side of the Arterial along Burrstone Road between Lincoln Ave and Sunset Ave).

Mitigation Sites (Route 921 B (Burrstone Rd.)/Lincoln Ave., Route 921 W (Champlin Ave.)/Route 5A)

Route 921 B (Burrstone Rd.)/Lincoln Ave. Connection –

Water: The 8” and 12” waterlines mentioned earlier will both be under the new connection. The MVWA has concerns with constructing the road over the lines.

Faxton-St. Lukes Fiber Optic: Due to the proximity of this site to Faxton, this fiber optic line is a concern.

Route 921 W (Champlin Avenue)/Route 5A Connection –

Water: Two major transmission lines (12” & 24”) run parallel to, and just east of Champlin Ave. The MVWA has a meter house in the property adjoining where the connection will be constructed. No impacts to these facilities are anticipated.

2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities – A single track rail siding, known as the Fay Street Branch, is located parallel to the west side of Routes 5/8/12 between a point approximately 240 feet North of Oswego Street and its terminus at the Fay Street Warehouse. The New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway Corporation (NYS&W) acquired the siding in 1982 and is the operating railroad. Ownership of the siding is shared by NYS&W and the Fay Street Warehouse. The NYS&W owns from the beginning of the siding to Roberts Street and the Fay Street Warehouse owns the balance. At-grade crossings with no active warning devices exist within the project limits at Sunset Avenue, Warren Street and Court Street. Remnants of old crossing signals are owned by NYSDOT. All of the crossings have asphalt surfaces and are in fair to poor condition. There are no other NYS&W utilities within the project limits and the railroad is not aware of any other utilities located on their property. There has been no freight service on this siding in the last fifteen years.

The NYS&W applied on or about August 17, 2009 to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) for authority to abandon this segment of its line of railroad. A notice of exempt abandonment pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR1152.50 was filed. A report in connection with the abandonment notice was also filed in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 1105.7. The STB Docket Number is AB-286 (Sub. No. 6X). NYS&W intends to salvage the track materials such as the rails and ties; however, it anticipates that the roadbed will be left intact.

2-28 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

The STB published the notice of abandonment on September 4, 2009.

2.3.4. Existing Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations - This section focuses on the critical existing areas to identify potential enhancement opportunities related to the project and to help avoid and minimize impacts. Chapter 4 focuses on impacts, enhancements, and mitigation.

2.3.4.1. Landscape

2.3.4.1.(1) Terrain - The terrain in the project area can generally be described as rolling.

2.3.4.1.(2) Unusual Weather Conditions - The Project site is typical of the region (USDA Zone – 5A: Average Minimum Temperature Range (-26.2 to -28.8 C). In winter, moderate to heavy wind driven snow falls are to be expected as well as lake effect snow storms from Lake Ontario.

2.3.4.1.(3) Visual Resource Inventory - The proposed project, which is a multi-lane highway viaduct reconstruction on new and existing alignment, is located in the urban center in the City of Utica. There will be three primary viewer groups of the proposed project: highway traffic users, residential occupants, and pedestrians.

The City in this location is a collection of 18th, 19th, and 20th century buildings, oriented mainly toward cross streets that intersect with the mainline highway project area. The main concentrations of structures to the west of the project area are single and multi-family wood frame houses with neighborhood businesses interspersed among them. One structure of interest, among many in this history rich area of Utica, is St. Joseph – St. Patrick Roman Catholic Church dating back to the late 1800s.

To the east of the mainline highway project area there is a mix of warehouse/factory, neighborhood business, auto repair, bar/restaurant, convenience store, parking lots, as well as some residential single and multi-family homes. Again, a structure complex of interest is Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church built in the early 1900s.

The existing four lane highway and viaduct bridge structure is fairly non descript and has, through the years, become less maintainable and has fallen into disrepair with respect to the immediately adjacent “green space” on both sides of the highway. The lawn area has had winter sanding overburden graded off and the turf has not been replaced. Plantings along existing chain link right of way fence have been impacted by winter plowing operations over the years and have become overgrown. An abandoned railroad paralleling the highway on the west side has also become overgrown save for a small foot path that residents have tracked in through the years.

The view of the highway, as it exists today, from both the east and west side neighborhoods is mainly of the raised viaduct as it progresses both north and south of the pass through between the Fay Street Warehouse and Brodock Press buildings. The views from Oriskany Blvd., LaFayette St. and Columbia St. to the east and from Varick St., Fay St., Columbia St. and somewhat from Cooper St. to the west are of the dilapidated piers, rusting steel and general sub structure and superstructure deterioration. The center median along Oriskany Boulevard in the area of the interchange with the North South Arterial is in disrepair having missing and dislodged brick pavers.

As the viaduct hits existing ground level at Court Street, the view of the at-grade highway is more muted. The pavement has been resurfaced a number of times in past years so it’s general appearance, as seen mainly from pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the highway or motorists along the highway, is fairly fresh and new. The center median shows signs of disrepair, with cracking, weeds growing from those cracks and around the center median barrier posts. To either side of the highway, the lawn areas have been trimmed of over burden and in many cases have not been re-seeded. The chain link fence is bent, rusted and the fabric leaning in many cases and the landscaping along it has been impacted by years of plowing winter snows against it. The general overall appearance is of a very cold, stark run down area.

2-29 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Champlin Ave. (Rte 921W)/ Rte 5A Champlin Avenue is a heavily traveled road with relatively low traffic speeds. The mitigation area is residential in character. Single and multifamily homes line the road with associated foundation type landscaping and street trees. Sidewalks are located on both sides of the street.

Lincoln Ave./Burrstone Road (Rte 921B) Lincoln Avenue dead ends in a combined residential/light industrial section of South Utica. Being that the street dead ends, traffic speeds are lower, the street is lined with mature trees and in an earlier Arterial project, plantings were installed at the end of the street to provide a screen between the area and the new on ramp for the Arterial

2.3.4.2. Social Resources – See Chapter 4 (Section 4.2) of this report for a description of existing social conditions and resources in the project area.

2.3.4.3 Economic Resources - See Chapter 4 (Section 4.3) of this report for a description of existing economic conditions and resources in the project area.

2.3.4.4. Environmental Resources – See Chapter 4 (Section 4.4) of this report for a description of existing environmental conditions and resources in the project area.

2.3.4.5. Opportunities for Environmental Improvements – As discussed in Chapter 4 of this report, there are practical opportunities to improve the quality of life in the project area with regard to existing social, economic and visual conditions.

2.3.5. Miscellaneous – There are no other relevant existing features and/or conditions that need to be discussed.

2-30 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES This chapter discusses the alternatives considered and examines the engineering aspects for all feasible alternatives to address project objectives in Chapter 1 of this report.

3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study

1 - No Build Under this alternative no action would be taken, allowing the condition of the viaduct to continue to decline. As previously stated, several elements of the viaduct, particularly the substructure, are reaching the end of their useful life. The deterioration is beyond that which minor maintenance efforts by State forces can repair. The viaduct will continue to degrade to a point where it will have to be posted for a reduced load, and eventually closed to all traffic. The State‟s statutory obligation to keep this road open and safe for the travelling public eliminates this option as a viable alternative. Although it is not a feasible alternative, it will be carried forward for comparison purposes in analyzing the impacts of the feasible alternative(s).

2 – Rehabilitate the Viaduct This alternative would involve retaining and making extensive repairs to the existing structures to obtain an acceptable condition rating. The viaduct was constructed in 1960 under contract FAC 60-25. It was rehabilitated in 1991 under contract D253122. That contract included deck scarification and placement of a micro silica concrete overlay. It also included new armored joint systems, cleaning and resetting the existing bearings and major patching of all concrete substructure units. Since that time, the bridge has consumed a large portion of the Regional Bridge Maintenance Group‟s work plan for deck patching, substructure patching, and bearing work. Presently, the federal sufficiency ratings for the two mainline structures (BINs 1002281 and 1002282) are less than 50.0 (44.8 and 45.5), which qualifies these bridges for replacement using HBRR funds. The two ramp bridges (BINs 100228A and 100228B) have federal sufficiency ratings of 62.6 and 71.8, which will most likely drop below the threshold of 50 by the time this project is ready for construction. A full rehabilitation of these structures would require the following work: 1. Remove and replace entire bridge deck 2. Install new bridge railing, curb and drainage (scuppers, downspouts, etc.) 3. Install new joints 4. Remove and replace all bearings 5. Install temporary shoring and remove and replace all pedestals. 6. Replace pier cap beams as needed 7. Patch all substructure units, including piers and abutments as needed 8. Repair all steel members as needed and paint the entire superstructure.

The estimated cost of rehabilitating these structures is in excess of 85% of the cost to replace them in kind, making these bridges candidates for replacement according to the New York State Bridge Manual. In addition, rehabilitating the structures would not allow for any of the geometric improvements necessary to meet current NYSDOT standards. For all these reasons, and because this alternative does not satisfy other project objectives, the rehabilitation alternative has been deemed to not be feasible and will be dropped from further consideration.

3 - Replace Viaduct on Existing Alignment Under this alternative, the viaduct would be replaced on the existing horizontal and vertical alignments. Some geometric and safety improvements would be possible, such as the creation of a new southbound entrance acceleration lane from Route 5A/5S. However, the non-standard horizontal curve on mainline just to the north of Court Street would not be improved. This curve, 3-1 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

along with horizontal sight distance restrictions created by the close proximity of the Fay Street Warehouse, are contributing factors to the high accident occurrence at the Court Street intersection. In addition, other safety, operational and access concerns at the Court Street intersection would not be adequately addressed. This alternative fails to meet most of the stated objectives of the project and will be dropped from further consideration.

4 - Replace Viaduct on New Alignment with a New At-Grade Intersection at Court Street Under this alternative, the viaduct would be replaced on a new horizontal alignment that would meet the existing elevation of Court Street to create an at-grade intersection. It would correct the non- standard horizontal curve just to the north of Court Street and eliminate the horizontal sight distance restriction by removing the Fay Street Warehouse. In addition, a southbound entrance acceleration lane from Route 5A/5S could be constructed. The Court Street intersection would be located to the west of the existing intersection and a new traffic signal system installed. This alternative allows for more geometrical improvements than replacing the viaduct on existing alignment, but still would not adequately address the safety, operational or access concerns at Court Street because the existing left turn restrictions would more than likely need to be retained at this intersection. This alternative would fail to meet most of the stated objectives of the project and will be dropped from further consideration.

3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives

3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives

5 - Replace Viaduct on New Alignment over Court Street The only feasible alternative carried forward from the project scoping phase is the Replace Viaduct on New Alignment over Court Street alternative. Under this alternative, the viaduct would be replaced on a new alignment such that Routes 5/8/12 is carried over Court Street creating a grade separated interchange. In addition to eliminating the structural deficiencies of the viaduct, this alternative allows for geometric improvements such as the elimination of the non-standard horizontal curve and horizontal sight distance on mainline just north of Court Street and the creation of a southbound acceleration and auxiliary lane from Routes 5A/5S. It eliminates conflicts between through traffic on Routes 5/8/12 and local traffic and pedestrians travelling along Court Street. Mobility and access will be greatly improved with the addition of a grade separated interchange at Court Street. This alternative meets all of the project objectives and is considered to be the preferred feasible alternative.

The proposed horizontal alignment will shift the arterial to the west of its existing location between Court Street and Routes 5A/5S. The proposed vertical alignment of the arterial will begin to rise just north of the existing Warren Street intersection to carry the arterial over Court Street. A new bridge will be constructed over Court Street, and replacement bridges will be constructed over Columbia Street, Lafayette Street, and Routes 5A/5S. In between these bridges, the arterial will be supported by internally stabilized retaining walls consisting of a mechanically stabilized earth system (MSES).

The arterial will carry two 12 ft. wide travel lanes in each direction with a 4 ft. wide left shoulder and a 10 ft. wide right shoulder. Auxiliary lanes for acceleration and deceleration at entrance and exit ramps will be 12 ft. wide.

Under this alternative, three different interchange types have been considered for the Court Street interchange:

 Diamond interchange with a roundabout at the ramp termini.  Diamond interchange with signalized intersections at the ramp termini,  Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI).

3-2 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

As discussed in Section 3.3.1.7, the SPUI will provide the best level of traffic operations for the interchange. Traffic is expected to experience similar delays for the SPUI and the roundabout as traffic entering and exiting the arterial backs up during the PM peak periods. However, the eastbound approach on Court Street fails with the roundabout making the SPUI a better option. It is expected that the large volume of free flowing southbound left turns will make it difficult for opposing eastbound traffic to enter the roundabout during PM peak periods. The diamond interchange option fails due to the spacing required between the two signalized intersections. The anticipated traffic queue lengths are greater than the distance available between the two intersections. Therefore, the roundabout and the signalized tight diamond configurations will not be considered further as viable options. In addition to the general configuration of the interchange, several options were considered as to which traffic movements on and off of Routes 5/8/12 should be accommodated with ramps. It has been determined that three ramps will be provided at the new interchange (southbound exit ramp, southbound entrance ramp, and northbound exit ramp).

Upon analyzing the potential for a northbound entrance ramp from Court Street to Routes 5/8/12, it was determined that there is insufficient distance to provide an adequate acceleration, merging, and weaving length before the ramp overlaps with the northbound exit to Routes 5A/5S. This would create new non-conforming features and substantial safety concerns. In addition, there would be substantial negative impacts to the businesses adjacent to the highway in this area. Northbound access to Routes 5/8/12 is readily available via State Street and the Routes 5A/5S interchange. The northbound access ramp was, therefore, deemed to be unnecessary and unfeasible and will be dropped from further consideration. The project will include pavement rehabilitation on State Street between Roberts Street and Ramp K. The traffic signals on State Street at the intersections of Court Street, Columbia Street, Lafayette Street and Ramp K will be replaced.

Also considered was the option to accommodate only the Routes 5/8/12 northbound exit to, and the Routes 5/8/12 southbound entrance from, Court Street. The southbound exit would be omitted thus, eliminating the right turn onto Court Street that is available today. This configuration meets some of the project objectives, but local mobility is greatly enhanced if the southbound exit ramp to Court Street is included. There is further impetus in the fact that omission of the southbound exit ramp was not well received when it was presented to local elected officials and to the public at a public open house meeting.

This alternative also includes the following elements:

a parallel one-way (southbound) frontage road along the west side of the arterial from Wager Street to Court Street, a 10 foot wide multiuse recreation trail located generally adjacent to the frontage road and connecting to the existing trail system in the vicinity of the Utica Memorial Auditorium, a pedestrian bridge crossing the arterial in the vicinity of the Sunset Avenue intersection, a new access point (ramp) from eastbound Route 5A to Lafayette Street (opposite Varick Street) and Utica‟s Historic Brewery District reconstruction and widening of Court Street between State Street and Huntington Street reconstruction of the loop ramps at the Routes 5A/5S (Oriskany Boulevard) interchange (Ramps G and E) to allow for geometric and operational improvements on the mainline arterial construction of an acceleration lane at the terminus of the ramp from southbound Routes 5/8/12 to westbound Route 5A (Ramp I) driveway improvements in the vicinity of the intersection of Sunset Avenue and Lincoln Avenue to preserve access for adjacent businesses the signalized intersections on the arterial at Sunset Avenue and Warren Street will be eliminated elimination of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Court Street. The northern terminus of Lincoln Avenue will be at State Street via Roberts Street

3-3 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

reconfiguration of the intersection of Cornelia Street and Route 5S with a new traffic signal (at the existing terminus of Ramp K).

The project also will include work at two sites to mitigate access and mobility impacts during construction. One is located at the intersection of NYS Route 921B (Burrstone Road) and Routes 5/8/12 northbound where Lincoln Avenue will be extended to meet Burrstone Road at a new traffic signal. The second location will be at the northern terminus of NYS Route 921W (Champlin Avenue). Champlin Avenue will be extended a short distance north across a former gas station property to intersect directly with Route 5A. This will provide a critical alternate route to area hospitals for emergency vehicles originating from areas north of Utica.

Multiple real estate purchases and relocations are necessary under this alternative. Exhibit 3.3.3.1.1 provides a summary of the numbers and types of impacted properties in the project area. Appendix H contains a table with individual property information, plans showing impacted property locations, and the Conceptual Stage Relocation plan. Section 4.4.2 also contains additional information.

Plans and typical sections for this alternative are provided in Appendix A. Project costs are summarized in Exhibit 3.2.1.

Exhibit 3.2.1 Summary of Project Costs Alternative #5 with 3 Ramp SPUI at Court Street Activities Cost

Highway $35.92 M Construction Bridge $26.10 M

Right of Way $6.28 M Total Cost $68.30 M

3.2.2 Preferred Alternative The feasible alternative that best meets the project objectives is Alternative 5 (Replace the viaduct on new alignment over Court Street). The selection of the preferred alternative will not be finalized until the alternatives' impacts, comments on the draft design approval document, and comments from the public hearing have been fully evaluated.

3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s)

3.2.3.1. Design Standards NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 2 and the NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2 apply to this project. These standards apply to all NYSDOT highway projects that are new construction and reconstruction, and to all NYSDOT bridge projects on highways with over 400 vehicles per day. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) was used to develop design criteria for the proposed shared use path.

3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements The following exhibits (3.2.3.2.A – 3.2.3.2.L) identify critical design elements applicable to this project.

3-4 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.A Critical Design Elements for Routes 5,8,12 PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): Yes (11) Urban Principal Arterial Interstate I-790 & Route No. & (North of Rte. 5A/5S) 5,8,12 (North-South Functional Class: Name: (12) Urban Principal Arterial Expressway Arterial) (South of Rte. 5A/5S)2 Urban Interstate Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Expressway2 % Trucks: 7% Terrain: Rolling ADT: 34,000 to 44,000 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Qualifying highway Element Standard Criteria Existing Conditions Proposed Condition 64 mph (85%), 1 Design Speed 60 mph1 60 mph 43 mph (85%) 12 ft minimum 2 Lane Width HDM Section 2.7.1.1 B 12 ft 12 ft Left, 4.0 ft minimum, (Curb Offset) Left- 4 ft 3 Shoulder Width Right,10 ft minimum, Left side- 1 Right – 10 ft HDM Section 2.7.1.1 C Table 2-2 Right side- 1 Full approach width, but not less than 27 ft 38 ft 4 Bridge Roadway Width AASHTOs Interstate Standards, 2005 BM Sections 2-3 Table 2-1 (one direction) (one direction) 4% 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.1.1 E, Table 2-2 2% 3% 1330 ft (@ e = 6.0%) 6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.1.1 F, Table 2-2 1070 ft 1968.5 ft @ e=6% 8% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.1.1 G 6% 6% 570 ft Minimum 8 Stopping Sight Distance HDM Section 2.7.1.1 H, Table 2-2 427 ft 570 ft min 15 ft without rail; Along rail, use larger of 4 ft or 1 ft with rail 4 ft with rail 9 Horizontal Clearance actual shoulder width HDM Section 2.7.1.1. l 15 ft w/o rail 14 ft Minimum, Highway 14 ft 6 in Desirable, Highway 14 ft min (Highway) 10 Vertical Clearance 15 ft Minimum, 15 ft 6 in Desirable 14 ft min Pedestrian Bridge & Overhead Signs 15 ft min

(Ped. Bridge & OH signs) BM Section 2.4.1 Table 2-2 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.1.1 K 2% 2% 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; 12 Rollover HDM Section 2.7.1.1 L 4%/8% 4%/8% AASHTO HL-93 Live Load, and NYS Design AASHTO HL-93 and NYS 13 Structural Capacity Permit Vehicle 1960s Design standard BM Sections 2.6.1 Permit Design Vehicle Min. “C” – Urban 14 Level of Service HDM-Section 2.7.1.1.N C C or better Fully controlled 15 Control of Access HDM-Section 2.7.1.1.O Partial Full 10 ft w/barrier (urban areas) 16 Median Width 4 ft minimum & varies 10 ft with barrier HDM-Section 2.7.1.1.P Pedestrian Pedestrians Prohibited by Pedestrians Prohibited by 17 Pedestrians Prohibited by Law Accommodation Law Law 1 The Regional Traffic Engineer has determined that the use of a Design Speed of 60 mph is consistent with the anticipated off- peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. See memo from the Regional Traffic Engineer dated 1/13/2011 in Appendix C. 2 The Region will construct the “Urban Expressway” section of the North-South Arterial to “Interstate” Standards

3-5 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.B Critical Design Elements for Routes 5A/5S (Oriskany Blvd.) PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): Route 5A No Route 5S Yes Route No. & Name: 5A and 5S (Oriskany Blvd.) Functional Class: (14) Urban Principal Arterial-Other Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Arterial % Trucks: 5-9% Terrain: Rolling ADT: 25,000 to 28,000 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Access highway Existing Proposed Element Standard Criteria Conditions Condition 1 1 Design Speed 50 mph 50 mph 50 mph Travel Lane - 12 ft minimum Travel Lanes and Travel Lanes and 2 Lane Width Turning Lanes – 11ft. Min, 12 ft. desirable Turning Lanes Turning Lanes HDM Section 2.7.2.2 B Table 2-4 12 ft 12 ft Curbed - Left 0 ft minimum, 1-2 ft. desirable Curbed - Right 0 ft. to 4 ft. minimum with wide travel 3 Shoulder Width lanes (12 ft. min.) 1 ft curb offset 1-2 ft HDM Section 2.7.2.2 C Table 2-4 Full width of planned roadway. If on the NHS, HDM Chapter 2 roadway widths shall 4 Bridge Roadway Width be met. N/A N/A BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1 7% 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.2.2 E, Table 2-4 3.5 % 3.5 % 926 ft (@ e = 4.0%) 6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.2.2 F, Table 2-4 2400 ft @ e=2% 2400 ft @ e=2% 4% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.2.2 G 2.4 % 2.4% 425 ft Minimum 277 ft (HSD) 277 ft (HSD) * 8 Stopping Sight Distance HDM Section 2.7.2.2 H, Table 2-4 419 (SSD) 419 (SSD) * 1.5 ft without barrier; 0 ft with barrier; 3 ft at intersections 0 ft with barrier 0 ft with barrier 9 Horizontal Clearance HDM Section 2.7.2.2 I >2 ft w/o barrier 2 ft/4 ft w/o barrier 14ft 6 in 14 ft Minimum, Highway (Eastbound Lanes 10 Vertical Clearance 14 ft 6 in Desirable, Highway 14‟ min BM Section 2.4.1 Table 2-2 under State Street Bridge) 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.2.2 K 2% 2% 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; 12 Rollover HDM Section 2.7.2.2 L 4%/8% 4%/8% AASHTO HL-93 Live Load, and NYS Design Permit 13 Structural Capacity Vehicle N/A N/A BM Sections 2.6.1 14 Pedestrian Accommodation Complies with ADA, See HDM Chapter 18 No Yes (1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has determined that the use of a Design Speed of 50 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. *-Non-Standard Feature-See Appendix F for Justification form

3-6 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.C Critical Design Elements for Interchange RAMPS (Routes 5/8/12 at Court Street) PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & Ramps for Routes Functional Class: (12) Urban Expressway1 Name: 5/8/12 & Court Street Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Interstate % Trucks: Varies by Ramp (See Terrain: Rolling Section 3.3.1.6) ADT: Varies by Ramp (See Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Qualifying Highway Exhibit 3.3.1.6) Existing Element Standard Criteria Proposed Condition Conditions 30 mph for semi direct, diagonal and outer N/A-ramps 1 Design Speed 30 mph connection type ramps do not exist Varies per Radius on Inner Traveled Way, Case II N/A-ramps Widths to be determined 2 Lane Width Condition D and Case III Condition D1 HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B Table 2-9 do not exist by Table 2-9 3 ft left, 6 ft right without curb 3‟ Lt. N/A-ramps 3 Shoulder Width 2 ft. curb offset desirable with curb 6‟ Rt. do not exist HDM Section 2.7.5.2 C Table 2-10 2‟ Curb Offsets The lane and shoulder widths should be carried N/A N/A-ramps 4 Bridge Roadway Width across all ramp structures No New Ramp Structures do not exist HDM Section 2.7.5.2.D are Proposed 7% N/A-ramps 5 Maximum Grade 4.2% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E, Table 2-10 do not exist 231 ft. (@ e=6.0% and 30 mph design speed) N/A-ramps 6 Horizontal Curvature 1000‟ HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Table 2-10 do not exist 6% Maximum N/A-ramps 7 Superelevation Rate e=6% max. HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G do not exist Stopping Sight Distance 200 ft. Minimum (@ 30 mph design speed) N/A-ramps 8 200‟ HDM Section 2.7.5.2 H, Table 2-10 do not exist 3 ft. left 6 ft. min. right side, left side 3 ft. min. N/A-ramps 9 Horizontal Clearance Under structure additional 4 ft outside shoulders 6 ft. right HDM Section 2.7.5.2 I do not exist Under structure additional 4 ft outside shoulders Ramp should have the same vertical clearance as the higher functional classification of the interchange roadways N/A-ramps 10 Vertical Clearance 14 ft Minimum, Highway 14‟ min do not exist 14 ft 6 in Desirable, Highway BM Section 2.4.1 Table 2-2 HDM Section 2.7.5.2.J 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. N/A-ramps 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 2% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K do not exist 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; if e>6%then max. N/A-ramps 12 Rollover rollover rate of 10% at EOT 4%/8% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L do not exist AASHTO HL-93 Live Load, and NYS Design Permit N/A N/A-ramps 13 Structural Capacity Vehicle No New Ramp Structures do not exist BM Sections 2.6.1 are Proposed Urban Min. “C” N/A-ramps D* (Southbound Exit 14 Level of Service HDM-Section 2.7.5.2. N do not exist Ramp to Court Street) Fully controlled N/A-ramps 15 Control of Access Full HDM-Section 2.7.5.2. O do not exist Pedestrian N/A-ramps Pedestrians Prohibited by 16 Pedestrians Prohibited by Law Accommodation do not exist Law 1 The Region will construct the “Urban Expressway” section of the North-South Arterial to “Interstate” Standards *-Non-Standard Feature-See Appendix F for Justification form

3-7 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.D Critical Design Elements for Interchange RAMPS (Routes 5/8/12 at Routes 5A/5S) PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & Name: Ramps for Routes Functional Class: (11) Urban Interstate 5/8/12 & Routes 5A/5S (12) Urban Expressway1 Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Interstate % Trucks: Varies by Ramp (See Terrain: Rolling Section 3.3.1.6) ADT: Varies by Ramp (See Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Qualifying Highway Exhibit 3.3.1.6) Element Standard Criteria Existing Conditions Proposed Condition 25 mph for 25 mph for loop type ramps 1) Ramps E&G 25 mph for section of Ramp K 2) Ramp K- (west of 1 Design Speed (west of merge with Ramp J) 25/30 mph Ramp J) 30 mph for semi direct, diagonal and outer connection type ramps All other Ramps-30 mph

Ramp B-15-16‟ (non-std) * Varies per Radius on Inner Traveled Way, Varies 15 ft. to 26 ft. (one Ramp E- 17‟ (non-std) * 2 Lane Width Case II Condition D and Case III Condition D1 lane), 28 ft. to 32 ft. (two HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B Table 2-9 lane) Ramp G- 32‟ (std) Ramp K- 26‟ (non-std) * Ramp A-1.5 „ lt. * Ramp D- varies Shoulders vary 1 ft. 6 in. to 3 (2‟4”- 3‟5” lt.) * 3 ft left, 6 ft right without curb ft 6 in. left & Ramp E- 3.5‟ lt, 6.5‟ rt. 3 Shoulder Width 2 ft. curb offset desirable with curb 6 ft 6 in right HDM Section 2.7.5.2 C Table 2-10 Curb offset = 0 ft. left and Ramp G- 3.5‟ lt, 6.5‟ rt. right Ramp I- 2‟ curb offset Ramp J- 0‟ lt. * Ramp K- 0‟ curb offset * Existing lane and shoulder The lane and shoulder widths should be carried N/A widths are carried across all across all ramp structures 4 Bridge Roadway Width ramp structures No New Ramp Structures HDM Section 2.7.5.2.D widths vary 20 ft. – 39 ft. are Proposed Ramp B- 7.8% * Ramp E- 8% * 7% 8% 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E, Table 2-10 Ramp G- 5% Ramp I- 8% * Ramp K- 5.2% Ramp E- 150‟ 144 ft. (@ e=6.0% and 25 mph design speed) Ramp G- 200‟ 6 Horizontal Curvature 231 ft. (@ e=6.0% and 30 mph design speed) 150 ft. HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Table 2-10 Ramp I- 250‟ Ramp K- tangent 6% Maximum e=6% max. 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G e=6% max. Ramp B-146‟ * Ramp D-143‟ * Stopping Sight 155 ft. (@ 25 mph design speed) Ramp E- 138‟ * 8 Distance 200 ft. Minimum (@ 30 mph design speed) 98 ft. Ramp G- 160‟ HDM Section 2.7.5.2 H, Table 2-10 Ramp I- 98‟ * Ramp K- 199‟ Ramp A-1‟-6” lt * 6 ft. min. right side, left side 3 ft. min. Ramp D-2‟4” lt * Under structure additional 4 ft outside 0 ft. left and right 9 Horizontal Clearance shoulders Ramp J-0‟ lt * HDM Section 2.7.5.2 I Ramp K-0‟ rt and lt * All other ramps 3-8 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.D Critical Design Elements for Interchange RAMPS (Routes 5/8/12 at Routes 5A/5S) PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & Name: Ramps for Routes Functional Class: (11) Urban Interstate 5/8/12 & Routes 5A/5S (12) Urban Expressway1 Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Interstate % Trucks: Varies by Ramp (See Terrain: Rolling Section 3.3.1.6) ADT: Varies by Ramp (See Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Qualifying Highway Exhibit 3.3.1.6) Element Standard Criteria Existing Conditions Proposed Condition 3 ft. left 6 ft. right Under structure additional 4 ft outside shoulders Ramp should have the same vertical clearance as the higher functional classification of the interchange roadways Ramp E- 17‟-9” Ramp E- 14‟ min

Ramp G- 15‟-3” Ramp G- 14‟ min Ramps 10 Vertical Clearance E, G, H, J and K Ramp H- 15‟-0” Ramp H- 14‟ min Ramp J- 15‟-8” Ramp J- 14‟ min 14‟ min, 14‟-6” desirable Ramp K- 15‟-8” Ramp K- 14‟ min

HDM Section 2.7.5.2.J Travel lane Cross 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 2% 2% Slope HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; if e>6%then 12 Rollover max. rollover rate of 10% at EOT 4%/8% 4%/8% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L BIN 100228A, 40 Tons/68 AASHTO HL-93 Live Load, and NYS Design Tons N/A Permit Vehicle BIN 100228B, 34 Tons/57 13 Structural Capacity Tons No New Ramp Structures BM Sections 2.6.1 (HS 20 Inventory/Operating are Proposed Ratings) Urban Min. “C” C 14 Level of Service HDM-Section 2.7.5.2. N D* (Ramp A) Fully controlled Full 15 Control of Access HDM-Section 2.7.5.2. O Full Pedestrian Pedestrians Prohibited by Pedestrians Prohibited by 16 Pedestrians Prohibited by Law Accommodation Law Law 1 The Region will construct the “Urban Expressway” section of the North-South Arterial to “Interstate” Standards *-Non-Standard Feature-See Appendix F for Justification form

3-9 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.E Critical Design Elements for Varick Street OFF-RAMP from Route 5A/Ramp “K” PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. & Ramp for Route 5A Functional Class: (14) Urban Principal Arterial-Other Name: Ramp K Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Arterial % Trucks: 5-9% Terrain: Rolling ADT: 1100 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Access Highway Element Standard Criteria Existing Conditions Proposed Condition 25 mph for loop type, diagonal and outer N/A-ramp 1 Design Speed 25 mph connection type ramps does not exist Varies per Radius on Inner Traveled Way, N/A-ramp 2 Lane Width Case II Condition C 21 feet HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B Table 2-9 does not exist 3 ft left, 6 ft right without curb N/A-ramp 3 Shoulder Width 2 ft. curb offset desirable with curb 2‟ curb offset HDM Section 2.7.5.2 C Table 2-10 does not exist The lane and shoulder widths should be carried N/A N/A-ramp 4 Bridge Roadway Width across all ramp structures No New Ramp Structures does not exist HDM Section 2.7.5.2.D are Proposed 7% N/A-ramp 5 Maximum Grade 3.8% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E, Table 2-10 does not exist 144 ft. (@ e=6.0% and 25 mph design speed) N/A-ramp 6 Horizontal Curvature 144 ft. HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Table 2-10 does not exist 6% Maximum N/A-ramp 7 Superelevation Rate e=6% max. HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G does not exist Stopping Sight Distance 155 ft. (@ 25 mph design speed) N/A-ramp 8 155‟ HDM Section 2.7.5.2 H, Table 2-10 does not exist 3 ft. left 6 ft. min. right side, left side 3 ft. min. N/A-ramp 9 Horizontal Clearance Under structure additional 4 ft outside shoulders 6 ft. right HDM Section 2.7.5.2 I does not exist Under structure additional 4 ft outside shoulders Ramp should have the same vertical clearance as the higher functional classification of the interchange roadways N/A-ramp N/A 10 Vertical Clearance 14 ft Minimum, Highway does not exist 14 ft 6 in Desirable, Highway HDM Section 2.7.5.2.J 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. N/A-ramp 11 Travel lane Cross Slope 2% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K does not exist 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; if e>6%then N/A-ramp 12 Rollover max. rollover rate of 10% at EOT 4%/8% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L does not exist AASHTO HL-93 Live Load, and NYS Design N/A N/A-ramp 13 Structural Capacity Permit Vehicle No New Ramp Structures does not exist BM Sections 2.6.1 are Proposed Fully controlled N/A-ramp 14 Control of Access Full HDM-Section 2.7.5.2. O does not exist Pedestrians Prohibited by Law Yes Pedestrian At Ramp Terminal with Varick Street, N/A-ramp 15 At ramp terminal Accommodation Accommodations will comply with ADA, See does not exist at Varick Street HDM Chapter 18

3-10 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.F Critical Design Elements for Rte. 921B (Burrstone Road) PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. & Name: 921B (Burrstone Road) Functional Class: (14) Urban Principal Arterial - Other Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Arterial % Trucks: 6% Terrain: Rolling ADT: 31,400 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Neither Existing Proposed Element Standard Criteria Conditions Condition 1 1 Design Speed 45 mph 45 mph 45 mph Travel Lanes (adjacent to curb in low speed segment to accommodate bicyclists), 12 ft. minimum, 14 ft. desirable 2 Lane Width Turning Lanes, 11 ft. minimum, 12 ft. desirable 12 ft 12 ft HDM Section 2.7.2.2 B Table 2-4 Curbed - Left 0 ft minimum, 1-2 ft. desirable Curbed – Right 0 ft. to 4 ft. minimum with wide travel 3 Shoulder Width lanes (12 ft. min.) 2 ft curb offset 2 ft curb offset HDM Section 2.7.2.2 C Table 2-4 Full width of planned roadway. If on the NHS, HDM Chapter 2 roadway widths shall 4 Bridge Roadway Width be met. N/A N/A BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1 7% 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.2.2 E, Table 2-4 2.5% 2.5% 711 ft (@ e = 4.0%) 6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.2.2 F, Table 2-4 2412 ft. 2412 ft. 4% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.2.2 G 3.6% 3.6% 360 ft Minimum 8 Stopping Sight Distance HDM Section 2.7.2.2 H, Table 2-4 365 ft (HSD) 365 (HSD) 0 ft with barrier 1.5 ft without barrier; 0 ft with barrier; 3 ft at intersections 0 ft with barrier 9 Horizontal Clearance 1.5 ft/3 ft w/o HDM Section 2.7.2.2 I >1.5 ft w/o barrier barrier 14 ft Minimum, Highway 10 Vertical Clearance 14 ft 6 in Desirable, Highway N/A N/A BM Section 2.4.1 Table 2-2 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.2.2 K 2% 2% 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; 12 Rollover HDM Section 2.7.2.2 L 4%/8% 4%/8% AASHTO HL-93 Live Load, and NYS Design Permit 13 Structural Capacity Vehicle N/A N/A BM Sections 2.6.1 14 Pedestrian Accommodation Complies with ADA, See HDM Chapter 18 No Yes (1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has determined that the use of a Design Speed of 45 mph is consistent with the anticipated off- peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume.

3-11 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.G Critical Design Elements for Rte. 921B (Burrstone Road) RAMPS AA and AB PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & 921B (Burrstone Road) Functional Class: (14) Urban Principal Arterial - Other Name: Ramps AA and AB Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Arterial Varies by Ramp (See % Trucks: Terrain: Rolling Section 3.3.1.6) Varies by Ramp (See ADT: Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Qualifying Exhibit 3.3.1.6) Existing Element Standard Criteria Proposed Condition Conditions 25 mph for loop ramps 25 mph Ramp AA 1 Design Speed 25/30 mph 30 mph for diagonal & outer connection ramps 30 mph Ramp AB Varies per Radius on Inner Traveled Way, Case II 2 Lane Width Condition D Varies 15‟ to 22‟ Varies 15‟ to 22‟ * HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B Table 2-9 Shoulders = 3 ft. 6 in. Shoulders = 3 ft. 6 in. left 3 ft left, 6 ft right without curb left & 6 ft. 6 in. right & 6 ft. 6 in. right 2 ft. curb offset desirable with curb 3 Shoulder Width Curb offset = 0 ft. left Curb offset = 0 ft. left and HDM Section 2.7.5.2 C Table 2-10 and right right The lane and shoulder widths should be carried 4 Bridge Roadway Width across all ramp structures N/A N/A HDM Section 2.7.5.2.D 7% 3.75% 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E, Table 2-10 3.75% 144 ft. (@ e=6.0% and 25 mph design speed) 6 Horizontal Curvature 231 ft. (@ e=6.0% and 30 mph design speed) 150 ft. 150 ft. HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Table 2-10 6% Maximum e=6.25% 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G e=6.25% * 155 ft. (@ 25 mph design speed) Stopping Sight Distance 8 200 ft. Minimum (@ 30 mph design speed) >1000 ft. >1000 ft. HDM Section 2.7.5.2 H, Table 2-10 3 ft. 6 in. left 6 ft. min. right side, left side 3 ft. min. 3 ft. 6 in. left 6 ft. 6 in. right Under structure additional 4 ft outside shoulders 9 Horizontal Clearance 6 ft. 6 in. right Under structure additional HDM Section 2.7.5.2 I 4 ft outside shoulders Ramp should have the same vertical clearance as the higher functional classification of the interchange roadways 21.3 ft 10 Vertical Clearance 14 ft Minimum, Highway 21.3 ft 14 ft 6 in Desirable, Highway HDM Section 2.7.5.2.J 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 2% 11 Travel lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K 2% 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; if e>6%then max. 12 Rollover rollover rate of 10% at EOT 4%/8% 4%/8% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L AASHTO HL-93 Live Load, and NYS Design Permit 13 Structural Capacity Vehicle N/A N/A BM Sections 2.6.1 Fully controlled Full 14 Control of Access HDM-Section 2.7.5.2. O Full Pedestrian At ramp terminal with crossroad, Complies with 15 Yes Yes Accommodation ADA, See HDM Chapter 18 *-Non-Standard Feature-See Appendix F for Justification form

3-12 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.H Critical Design Elements for Rte. 921W (Champlin Ave. Extension) PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. & Name: 921W (Champlin Ave.) Functional Class: (16) Urban Minor Arterial Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Arterial % Trucks: 6% Terrain: Rolling ADT: 11,000 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Neither Existing Proposed Element Standard Criteria Conditions Condition N/A 1 1 Design Speed 35 mph Extension does 35 mph not exist Travel Lanes (adjacent to curb in low speed segment to N/A accommodate bicyclists), 12 ft. minimum, 14 ft. desirable Extension does Varies 12 ft. to 15 2 Lane Width Turning Lanes, 11 ft. minimum, 12 ft. desirable not exist ft. HDM Section 2.7.2.2 B Table 2-4 N/A 0 ft. to 4 ft. minimum with wide travel lanes (12 ft. min.) Extension does 3 Shoulder Width HDM Section 2.7.2.2 C Table 2-4 0 ft not exist N/A 8% Extension does 4 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.2.2 E, Table 2-4 5.3% not exist N/A 371 ft. (@ e = 4.0%) Extension does 5 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.2.2 F, Table 2-4 Tangent not exist N/A 4% Maximum Extension does 6 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.2.2 G 4% not exist N/A 250 ft. Minimum Extension does 7 Stopping Sight Distance HDM Section 2.7.2.2 H, Table 2-4 98‟ * not exist 1.5 ft. without barrier; 0 ft. with barrier; 3 ft. at N/A 0 ft with barrier 8 Horizontal Clearance intersections Extension does 1.5 ft/3 ft w/o not exist HDM Section 2.7.2.2 I barrier 14 ft. Minimum, Highway N/A 9 Vertical Clearance 14 ft. 6 in. Desirable, Highway Extension does N/A BM Section 2.4.1, Table 2-2 not exist N/A 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. Extension does 10 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.2.2 K 2% not exist N/A 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; Extension does 11 Rollover HDM Section 2.7.2.2 L 4%/8% not exist N/A 12 Pedestrian Accommodation Complies with ADA, See HDM Chapter 18 Extension does Yes not exist (1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has determined that the use of a Design Speed of 35 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. *-Non-Standard Feature-See Appendix F for Justification form

3-13 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.I Critical Design Elements for Court Street and State Street PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): Court Street - No State Street - No Route No. & Name: Court Street Functional Class: (16) Urban Minor Arterial State Street Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Arterial % Trucks: 5-9% Terrain: Rolling ADT: 7,000 to 15,000 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. No Existing Proposed Element Standard Criteria Conditions Condition 1 1 Design Speed 30 mph 30 mph 30 mph Travel Lanes (adjacent to curb in low speed segment to Travel Lanes and Travel Lanes and accommodate bicyclists), 12 ft. minimum, 14 ft. desirable Turning Lanes Turning Lanes 2 Lane Width Turning Lanes, 11 ft. minimum, 12 ft. desirable 12 ft 12 ft Parking Lanes – 8‟ minimum Parking Lanes Parking Lanes HDM Section 2.7.2.2 B Table 2-4 12 ft 12 ft 0 ft. to 4 ft. minimum with wide travel lanes (12 ft. min.) 3 Shoulder Width HDM Section 2.7.2.2 C Table 2-4 1 ft curb offset 1-2 ft Full width of planned roadway. If on the NHS, HDM Chapter 2 roadway widths shall 4 Bridge Roadway Width be met. N/A N/A BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1 9% 3.9%-Court St. 3.9%-Court St. 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.2.2 E, Table 2-4 4.2%-State St. 4.2%-State St. 250 ft (@ e = 4.0%) 6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.2.2 F, Table 2-4 tangent tangent 4% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.2.2 G 2% 2% 200 ft Minimum 550‟-Court St. 550‟-Court St. 8 Stopping Sight Distance HDM Section 2.7.2.2 H, Table 2-4 300‟-State St. 300‟-State St. 1.5 ft without barrier; 0 ft with barrier; 3 ft at intersections 0 ft with barrier 0 ft with barrier 9 Horizontal Clearance HDM Section 2.7.2.2 I >2 ft w/o barrier 2 ft/4 ft w/o barrier 14 ft Minimum, Highway 14‟ min 10 Vertical Clearance 14 ft 6 in Desirable, Highway N/A @ Court Street BM Section 2.4.1 Table 2-2 Interchange 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. Travel Lanes 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 1.5% to 5% Max. Parking Lanes 2% 2% HDM Section 2.7.2.2 K 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; 12 Rollover HDM Section 2.7.2.2 L 4%/8% 4%/8% AASHTO HL-93 Live Load, and NYS Design Permit 13 Structural Capacity Vehicle N/A N/A BM Sections 2.6.1 14 Pedestrian Accommodation Complies with ADA, See HDM Chapter 18 Yes Yes (1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has determined that the use of a Design Speed of 30 mph is consistent with the anticipated off- peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume.

3-14 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.J Critical Design Elements for Lincoln Avenue, Columbia and Lafayette Streets PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): Lincoln Avenue – No Columbia Street – No Lafayette Street - No Route No. & Name: Lincoln Avenue Functional Class: (17) Urban Collector Columbia Street Lafayette Street Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban Collector % Trucks: 5-9% Terrain: Rolling ADT: 1,000 to 4,000 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. No Existing Proposed Element Standard Criteria Conditions Condition 1 Design Speed 30 mph1 30 mph 30 mph Travel Lanes (adjacent to curb in low speed segment to accommodate bicyclists), 12 ft. minimum, 14 ft. desirable Travel Lanes and Travel Lanes and 2 Lane Width Turning Lanes – 11ft. min, 12 ft. desirable Turning Lanes Turning Lanes Parking Lanes – 8 ft min, 11‟ desirable 12 ft 12 ft HDM Section 2.7.3.2 B Table 2-6 0 ft. to 4 ft. minimum with wide travel lanes (12 ft. min.) 3 Shoulder Width HDM Section 2.7.3.2 C Table 2-6 1 ft curb offset 1-2 ft Full width of planned roadway. 4 Bridge Roadway Width BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1 N/A N/A 11% 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.2.2 E, Table 2-6 2.4 % 2.4 % 250 ft (@ e = 4.0%) 6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.3.2 F, Table 2-6 160‟ @ e=2% 160‟ @ e=2% * 4% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.3.2 G 4% max. 4% max. 200 ft Minimum 515‟ (HSD) 515‟ (HSD) 8 Stopping Sight Distance HDM Section 2.7.3.2 H, Table 2-4 370‟ (SSD) 370‟ (SSD) 1.5 ft without barrier; 0 ft with barrier; 3 ft at intersections 0 ft with barrier 0 ft with barrier 9 Horizontal Clearance HDM Section 2.7.3.2 I >2 ft w/o barrier 2 ft/4 ft w/o barrier 14‟ min 14 ft. 6 in. Columbia St. & 14 ft Minimum, Highway (Columbia St.) Lafayette St. 10 Vertical Clearance 14 ft 6 in Desirable, Highway BM Section 2.4.1 Table 2-2 18 ft. 11 in. (LaFayette St.) N/A Lincoln Ave. 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. Travel Lanes 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 1.5% Min. to 5% Max. Parking Lanes 2% 2% HDM Section 2.7.3.2 K 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; 12 Rollover HDM Section 2.7.3.2 L 4%/8% 4%/8% AASHTO HL-93 Live Load, and NYS Design Permit 13 Structural Capacity Vehicle N/A N/A BM Sections 2.6.1 14 Pedestrian Accommodation Complies with ADA, See HDM Chapter 18 Yes Yes (1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has determined that the use of a Design Speed of 30 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. *-Non-Standard Feature-See Appendix F for Justification form

3-15 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.K Critical Design Elements for City Streets PIN: 2134.41 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. & Name: City Streets Functional Class: Local Urban Streets Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Local Urban Streets % Trucks: Varies (See Section Terrain: Rolling 3.3.1.6) ADT: Varies (See Exhibit Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Neither 3.3.1.6) Element Standard Criteria Existing Conditions Proposed Condition 1 Design Speed 30 mph1 30 mph 30 mph Travel Lanes (with curb and separate path for Travel Lanes - 10 ft. bicyclists), 10 ft. minimum, 11 ft. desirable min. with separate Travel Lanes Vary 10ft. – bicycle path, 12 ft. min. Travel Lanes (adjacent to curb in low speed segment 12 ft. without separate bicycle to accommodate bicyclists), 12 ft. minimum, 14 ft. 2 Lane Width desirable Turning Lanes Vary 10ft. path – 11 ft. Turning Lanes 9 ft. Turning Lanes, 9 ft. minimum, 12 ft. desirable Parking Lanes, 10 ft. minimum Parking Lanes, 8 ft. minimum, 11 ft. desirable Parking Lanes 8 ft. HDM Section 2.7.4.2 B Table 2-8 minimum 0 ft. to 4 ft. minimum with wide travel lanes (12 ft. 3 Shoulder Width min.) or separate path for bicyclists 0 ft. 0 ft. to 4 ft. minimum HDM Section 2.7.4.2 C Table 2-8 8% Commercial/Industrial 4 Maximum Grade 15% Residential 7.7% (Warren St.) 7.7% (Warren St.) HDM Section 2.7.4.2 E, Table 2-8

250 ft. (@ e = 4.0%) * 5 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.4.2 F, Table 2-8 83 ft. (Sunset Ave.) 160 ft. (Lincoln Ave.) 4% Maximum 6 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.4.2 G 2 % 4% Stopping Sight 200 ft. Minimum To Be Determined To Be Determined 7 Distance HDM Section 2.7.4.2 H, Table 2-8 As design progresses As design progresses 1.5 ft. without rail; 0 ft. with barrier; 3 ft. at 1.5 ft minimum 8 Horizontal Clearance intersections 1.5 ft. 3 ft minimum at HDM Section 2.7.4.2 I intersections 14 ft. minimum, 14 ft. 6 in. desirable 9 Vertical Clearance BM Section 2.4.1, Table 2-2 N/A 14‟ min Travel Lane Cross 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 10 2% 2% Slope HDM Section 2.7.4.2 K 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; 11 Rollover HDM Section 2.7.4.2 L 4%/8% 4%/8% Pedestrian 12 Complies with ADA, See HDM Chapter 18 No Yes Accommodation (1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has determined that the use of a Design Speed of 30 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume *Non-Standard Feature-See Appendix F for Justification form

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.L Critical Design Elements for Shared Use Paths (1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities) Existing Element Standard Criteria Proposed Condition Conditions 20 mph 1 Design Speed (AASHTO Guide, pages 36-37) N/A 20 mph Paved – 10 ft. Minimum Paved – 10 ft. Minimum 2 Width Operating – 14 ft. Minimum N/A (AASHTO Guide, pages 35-36) Operating – 14 ft. Minimum

3-16 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.L Critical Design Elements for Shared Use Paths (1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities) 5% 3 Maximum Grade (AASHTO Guide, page 39) N/A 5% max. 100 ft. Min. Radius To Be Determined 4 Horizontal Curvature N/A (AASHTO Guide, Table 1, page 38) As design progresses 2% Maximum 5 Superelevation Rate (AASHTO Guide, page 38) N/A 2% 140 ft. Minimum (Stopping) (AASHTO Guide, Figure 19, page 42) Stopping Sight To Be Determined 6 23.7 ft. Minimum (Horizontal Sight Distance on N/A Distance Horizontal Curves) As design progresses (AASHTO Guide, Table 4, page 46) 3 ft. min., 6 ft. max. To Be Determined 7 Horizontal Clearance 5 ft. min. to Top of Slopes Steeper than 1:3 N/A (AASHTO Guide, page 36) As design progresses 8 ft. Minimum To Be Determined 8 Vertical Clearance 10 ft. Minimum for Undercrossings and Tunnels N/A (AASHTO Guide, page 36) As design progresses 2% Maximum 9 Cross Slope (AASHTO Guide, page 38) N/A 2% Pedestrian 10 Complies with ADA, See HDM Chapter 18 N/A Yes Accommodation

3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters

Exhibit 3.2.3.3.a Other Design Parameters Element Standard Criteria Proposed Condition Level of Service LOS C Desirable 1 See Section 3.3.1.7 (for non – interstate projects) LOS D Minimum 10 yr. (Routes 5/8/12, Routes 10 yr. (Routes 5/8/12, Routes 5A/5S, Design Storm for Closed Drainage 2 5A/5S, Burrstone Road) Burrstone Road) Facilities 5 yr. (All other roadways) 5 yr. (All other roadways)

Exhibit 3.2.3.3.b Other Design Parameter: Design Vehicle Location Design Vehicle Vehicle Accommodated Route 5/8/12 Mainline & ramps to/from: a. Route 5A/5S (Oriskany Boulevard) WB-67 WB-67 b. Court Street c. Burrstone Road (Route 921B) Route 5A/5S (Oriskany Boulevard) WB-67 WB-67 Burrstone Road (Route 921B) CITY BUS CITY BUS Court Street CITY BUS CITY BUS State Street (Roberts St. to Rte 5S) CITY BUS CITY BUS Lincoln Avenue (Burrstone to Court) CITY BUS CITY BUS Lafayette & Columbia Streets CITY BUS CITY BUS Whitesboro Street CITY BUS CITY BUS New Frontage Road-Local Road SU SU (North of Court Street) New Frontage Road-South of Court St SU SU (South of SB on-ramp diverge) New Varick Street Off-Ramp SU SU Champlin Avenue (Route 921W) SU SU New Champlin Avenue Extension SU SU Local Road Reconstructions not listed above SU SU

3-17 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

3.3. Engineering Considerations

3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance

3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System This project will not change the functional classification of the highway or city streets.

3.3.1.2. Control of Access Full control of access will be provided on Routes 5/8/12 within the project limits.

3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices

3.3.1.3. (1) Traffic Signals: The existing traffic signals at the Sunset Avenue and Warren Street intersections with the arterial will be eliminated when these intersections are closed. A new traffic signal will be installed at the proposed intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Burrstone Road. The existing traffic signal at the intersection of Court Street and the arterial will be replaced with a new system that will control the proposed single point urban interchange (SPUI). The existing signals on State Street at the intersections of Court Street, Columbia Street, Lafayette Street and Ramp K will be replaced. At the Champlin Avenue mitigation site, the existing signal at the intersection of Champlin Avenue and Whitesboro Street will be replaced.

3.3.1.3. (2) Signs: Existing signs will be replaced. The proposed signing with include new direction, guidance and information signs to meet MUTCD reflectivity and compliance standards. The signs will relate to the proposed intersection configurations. ADA and pedestrian related signs will be included in the project.

3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) and Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS) for a one mile segment of Routes 5/8/12 and its interchange with Routes 5S and 5A will be constructed. Components of these ITS systems are anticipated to be closed circuit video cameras (CCTV), roadway sensors and other support equipment. Infrastructure will also be needed to provide communications between these roadway components and the NYSDOT Region 2 Traffic Operations Center. This ITS work will be implemented in accordance with the Mohawk Valley Regional ITS Architecture (September 17, 2010). Development of project level architecture, operations concepts, and systems engineering analyses has been completed. This information is located in Appendix C. See Section 2.3.1.4 for a discussion of other permanent ITS elements that are proposed on adjacent segments of Routes 5/8/12.

3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay

3.3.1.5.(1) Proposed Speed Limit - The posted speed limit on the arterial, within the project limits, will be 55 MPH. Existing speed limits on all other roadways will be retained.

3.3.1.5.(2) Travel Time Estimates – Travel time estimates are not typically applicable for a bridge replacement project. However, travel time estimates were developed because the proposed Court Street interchange and the closures of the Sunset Avenue and Warren Street intersections will affect capacity on the arterial. See Table E in Appendix C for this information.

3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes Refer to Exhibit 3.3.1.6 for a summary of the forecasted traffic volumes for the feasible alternative. A description of the methodology used to estimate these volumes is provided in Appendix C. Traffic flow diagrams showing peak hour turning movement volumes for intersections with identified accident problems, all major intersections, and major traffic generator driveways/entrances are included in Appendix C. The truck percentage of daily traffic within the project area is not expected to change from the levels described in Section 2.3.1.6.

3-18 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.3.1.6 Forecast Traffic Volumes YEAR 2045 LOCATION 2015 (ETC) (ETC + 30) AADT DHV AADT DHV Rte. 5,8,12 (Sunset Ave. - Court St.) 43,000 4335 56,000 5695

Rte. 5,8,12 (Court St. – Rte. 5A/5S) 34,000 3420 44,000 4495

Rte. 5,8,12 (Rte. 5A/5S – CSXT RR) 53,000 5345 70,000 7015

Court St. (State St. – Rte. 5,8,12) 20,000 2005 26,000 2635

Court St. (Schuyler St. – Rte. 5,8,12) 5500 555 7500 750

Rte. 5A (Schuyler St. – Rte. 5,8,12) 24,000 2465 32,000 3215 30,000 3055 Rte. 5A (Utica City Line – Schuyler St.) 25,000 2540 (ETC+20) (ETC+20) Rte 5S (Rte. 5,8,12 – Genesee St.) 26,000 2645 34,000 3450

Ramp I (Rte. 5,8,12 SB – Rte. 5A WB) 3800 380 5000 500

Ramp H (Rte. 5,8,12 SB – Rte. 5S EB) 3000 290 3900 385

Ramp J (Rte. 5,8,12 SB – State St.) 1800 175 2300 230

Ramp G (Rte. 5A EB – Rte. 5,8,12 SB) 500 50 700 70

Ramp K (Rte. 5A EB – State St.) 3900 390 5100 510

Ramp B (Rte. 5S WB – Rte. 5,8,12 NB) 4800 485 6400 640

Ramp K (State St. – Rte. 5S EB) 3600 360 4800 480

Ramp G (Rte. 5S WB – Rte. 5,8,12 SB) 3700 375 4900 495

Ramp E (Rte. 5,8,12 NB – Rte. 5A WB) 660 65 850 90

Ramp D (Rte. 5,8,12 NB – State St.) 2000 195 2600 260

Ramp A (State St. – Rte. 5,8,12 NB) 7700 770 10,000 1000 Proposed Varick St. Ramp (Rte. 5A EB 800 85 1100 115 – Lafayette Street) Proposed Southbound Exit Ramp to 5100 510 6800 680 Court Street Proposed Northbound Exit Ramp to 3900 390 5100 515 Court Street Proposed Southbound Entrance Ramp 5200 525 6800 685 to Court Street Proposed Frontage Road (Court St. – 8400 840 11,000 1100 Proposed SB Entrance Ramp) Proposed Frontage Road (Proposed SB 3100 315 4100 415 Entrance Ramp – Wager St.) Rte. 921W/Champlin Ave (South of 19,000 1920 15,000 1595 Whitesboro St.) (ETC+20) (ETC+20)

3-19 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.3.1.6 Forecast Traffic Volumes YEAR 2045 LOCATION 2015 (ETC) (ETC + 30) AADT DHV AADT DHV Proposed Rte. 921W/Champlin Ave 8600 865 7100 715 (Whitesboro St. – Rte. 5A) (ETC+20) (ETC+20) Rte. 921B/Burrstone Road (at Routes 27,000 2600 38,880 3850 5,8,12) Lincoln Ave. (Court St. – Warren St.) 1500 145 2000 200

Lincoln Ave. (Warren St. – Oswego St.) 3800 395 4500 465 Proposed Lincoln Ave. (Oswego St. – 6000 600 7000 720 Rte. 921B/Burrstone Road) Notes: (1) ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion. (2) Refer to Section 2.3.1.6 for the no-build traffic under the No-Build (Null) Alternative.

3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility

3.3.1.7 (1) At Project Completion & Design Year – As discussed in Appendix C (Tables B1, B2, and B3), and shown in Exhibits 3.3.1.7-1 through 3.3.1.7-3, the Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) will provide the best level of traffic operations for the proposed Court Street interchange. The off-site local transportation system (local streets and intersections a block or more away) adjacent to the arterial and the Court Street intersection will operate similarly (LOS C or better) under the three options (see LOS results in Appendix C). Therefore, the roundabout and the signalized tight diamond configurations were dismissed as viable options. Traffic is expected to experience similar delays at ETC+30 for the SPUI and the roundabout as traffic entering and exiting the arterial backs up during the PM peak periods. However, the eastbound approach on Court Street fails (LOS F) with the roundabout making the SPUI a better option. It is expected that the large volume of free flowing southbound left turns will make it difficult for opposing eastbound traffic to enter the roundabout during PM peak periods. The diamond interchange option fails due to the spacing required between the two signalized intersections. The anticipated traffic queue lengths are greater than the distance available between the two intersections. Exhibit 3.3.1.7-1 Intersection Level of Service and Delays (seconds) Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) Option Court St. & Route 5/8/12 Year Approach ETC ETC+20 ETC+30 EB C (23.0) C(32.2) C(31.5) WB B(19.9) D (42.6) C(26.1) NB B(12.8) B(14.4) B(14.6) SB D(39.5) E(72.1) E(78.0) Overall C(23.6) D(42.7) D(36.8)

3-20 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.3.1.7-2 Intersection Level of Service and Delays (seconds) Roundabout Option Court St. & Route 5/8/12 Year Approach ETC ETC+20 ETC+30 EB D (42.1) D(52.0) F(140.2) WB A(5.7) A(5.7) A(5.8) NB B(15.3) B(16.6) C(22.6) SB C(23.7) C(25.9) E(57.4) Overall B(17.3) B(19.6) D(42.0)

Exhibit 3.3.1.7-3 Intersection Level of Service and Delays (seconds) Diamond Interchange Option Court St. & Route 5/8/12 (Southbound Exit Ramp and Frontage Road) Year Approach ETC ETC+20 ETC+30 EB B (19.3) D (39.7) C (22.7) WB D (42.2) D (49.7) F (297.3) SB B (11.8) D (53.5) D (53.8) Overall C (29.6) D (48.8) F (171.8) Court St. & Route 5/8/12 (Northbound Exit Ramp & Driveway) EB B (14.6) C (24.2) D (40.1) WB A (7.1) B (14.1) A (5.2) NB A (10.0) B (10.2) D (49.2) SB A (9.3) A (5.8) B (16.3) Overall B (10.1) B (17.2) C (25.0)

Travel pattern changes and redistribution of traffic resulting from closing Sunset Avenue and Warren Street and the construction of a new interchange at Court Street will not significantly impact operations on the highway and street network within or immediately adjacent to the project limits. Minor impacts associated with the closures of the Sunset Avenue and Warren Street intersections with the North South Arterial are possible as local traffic seeking to travel east and west will need to use other crossings. Depending on the route chosen, the added travel time is estimated to be 1 to 2 minutes with additional travel distances ranging from 0.33 to 0.87 miles (See Appendix C for analysis). It is expected that most of the relatively low volumes of traffic crossing the North South Arterial on Sunset Avenue and Warren Street will be diverted to Court Street and Noyes Street. The proposed interchange at Court Street and existing intersection at Noyes Street can accommodate this crossing traffic in a safer manner with minimal increase in travel times.

Modeling shows that improvements at Court Street will attract much of the traffic wanting to access the arterial, particularly, in the southbound direction. Little existing mainline turning traffic at Sunset Avenue and Warren Street is expected to be diverted to the Oswego Street or Noyes Street intersections either. Currently, no turns are permitted off of the arterial at Sunset Avenue with the exception of southbound right turns which are less than 20 vehicles in the design hour. At Warren Street, turns off of the arterial are limited to 60 southbound and 65 northbound right turns. It is expected that most of these right turns will be attracted to the new interchange at Court Street. The forecasted (ETC+30) low volumes of

3-21 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

through traffic across the arterial on Sunset Avenue (295 DHV) and Warren Street (85 DHV) can easily be accommodated on the remaining arterial crossings at Court Street, Oswego Street and Noyes Street.

At the estimated time of completion, modeling indicates an increase (no-build vs. build conditions) in northbound right turns onto the arterial at the Oswego Street and Noyes Street intersections. Respectively, these volumes increase from 75 vehicles per hour (vph) to 275 vph and from 35 vph to 165 vph. These increases may be the result of traffic currently using city streets to reach northern destinations being attracted to the free flow conditions that will be available on the arterial north of Noyes Street after construction of this project. Even with these increased volumes, the projected LOS at both of these intersections is LOS B or C at ETC and at ETC+30.

Because the project does not include a northbound entrance ramp from Court Street, existing northbound access to Routes 5/8/12 from Court Street will be eliminated and redirected to State Street and the Routes 5A/5S interchange. The analysis indicates that the intersections on State Street between Court Street and Routes 5A/5S, while populated with additional northbound traffic, will operate under satisfactory conditions with LOS C or better at ETC+30. Existing westbound traffic on Court Street destined to westbound Route 5A/5S (Oriskany Boulevard) via a right turn to northbound Routes 5/8/12 and exiting at Ramp E will likely use Broadway Street located east of Routes 5/8/12. This change in travel pattern does not impact a significant volume of traffic or adversely impact traffic operations on Broadway Street. The ETC+30 build volume of northbound left turns at the intersection of Broadway Street and Route 5S (Oriskany Boulevard) is estimated to be 35 vph greater than the ETC+30 no-build volumes and the intersection will operate under satisfactory conditions with LOS C at ETC+30.

The analysis included an unsignalized intersection at Lincoln Avenue and Court Street with traffic movements restricted to right turns only to and from Lincoln Avenue. Subsequently, it was determined that it is not feasible to retain this intersection. It will be too close to the proposed northbound exit ramp intersection for both intersections to safely operate. Elimination of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Court Street is proposed and the northern terminus of Lincoln Avenue will be at State Street via Roberts Street. The redirected volume of right turns (90 vph at ETC+30 for each) is not expected to adversely impact traffic operations at the intersections of State Street with Court Street and Roberts Street.

In an effort to improve access and mobility for residents and businesses in West Utica, the project will include a parallel one-way (southbound) frontage road along the west side of the arterial from Wager Street to Court Street. It will preserve and enhance the connectivity of the city street network and it will be accessible from all directions at the proposed Court Street interchange. The frontage road will provide safer access than the existing arterial intersections at Sunset Avenue and Warren Street because conflicts with large volumes of higher speed traffic on the arterial will be eliminated.

The new ramp from eastbound Route 5A to Lafayette Street (opposite Varick Street) will improve access to Utica‟s Historic Brewery District. This improvement is consistent with goals and strategies identified in the draft Utica Master Plan for increasing public awareness, access and connectivity to city Historic Districts.

Traffic on Lincoln Avenue is expected to increase slightly as it will carry local traffic to and from Burrstone Road. Levels of service at the new Burrstone Road intersection will be satisfactory as traffic should be limited to local trips along the arterial and access to the arterial from the southern portion of Utica and the Burrstone Road area.

The proposed unsignalized intersection of Route 5A and Champlin Avenue will operate at LOS B or better up to ETC+20. At the design year of ETC+30, the level of service for the northbound right-turn is projected to be LOS F. The Whitesboro Street and Champlin Avenue intersection will operate overall at LOS C or better at ETC+30.

3-22 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

3.3.1.7 (2) – Work Zone Safety & Mobility

A. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan The construction of this project is currently planned to be accomplished in three phases. See Exhibit 3.3.1.7-4 for a detailed description of each construction phase. The first two phases will include work that will mainly impact city streets and that can be accomplished with standard daily work zone traffic control measures. Major work on the mainline arterial that will significantly disrupt traffic flow and operations (bridge replacements and construction of the Court Street interchange) will be included in the third construction phase.

Exhibit 3.3.1.7-4 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PHASING/WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1 - DECEMBER 2012 LETTING ($5.87 M) Work Zone Traffic Control Activity Description When Plan Daytime, City Streets - Typical lane Building Mainline Building demolitions. closures, minimal expected; Demolitions peak hour Mainline - Typical lane closures restrictions Burrstone Extend Lincoln Ave. south. Construct new Road/Lincoln Daytime, signalized intersection. Remove existing Mainline and Burrstone Road - Avenue Peak hour northbound exit and entrance ramps. Construct Typical Lane Closures Connection restrictions Indium Corp. parking mitigation. (Mitigation) Daytime, Champlin Extend Champlin Ave. north. Construct new Route 5A, Champlin Ave., Peak hour Avenue/Route intersection. Improve Champlin Whitesboro Street - Typical lane restrictions 5A Connection Ave./Whitesboro St. intersection. closures on Route (Mitigation) 5A Close east side of Sunset Ave./Arterial Sunset Daytime, intersection and leave west side of the City Streets - Typical lane Avenue No intersection open. Construct mitigation work closures Mitigation restrictions (Utica Cutlery, Holy Trinity Church, Dingy Bar) Construct new pedestrian bridge - spanning City Streets - Typical lane Daytime, Pedestrian mainline, proposed frontage road and Holy closures, minimal expected; Mainline Bridge Trinity Church access. Construct ramp to the Mainline - Typical lane closures peak hour bridge on the west side of the arterial. and temporary full closure restrictions CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2 - JUNE 2013 LETTING ($4.38 M) Work Zone Traffic Control Activity Description When Plan Court Street Daytime, Widening & Possible Reconstruct and widen Court Street to 5 lane City Streets - Typical lane Reconstruction Court St. section. Replace signal at State Street. closures, (Huntington St. peak hour to State St.) restrictions City Streets - Typical lane State St. Daytime, Mill and resurface State Street. Replace signals closures, possible short duration (Court Street No at Columbia St., Lafayette St. and Ramp K. total closure with detour on city to Ramp K) restrictions streets. Mill and resurface Lincoln Ave. from Newell St. City Streets - Typical lane Lincoln Ave. Daytime, to Roberts St. Abandon Lincoln Ave. between closures, possible short duration (Burrstone Rd. No Roberts St. and Court St. Mill and resurface segmented total closures with to Court St.) restrictions Roberts St. between Lincoln Ave. and State St. detour on city streets.

3-23 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.3.1.7-4 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PHASING/WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN

Work TBD. Components are anticipated to be closed circuit video cameras (CCTV), roadway Daytime, sensors and other support equipment. ITS Elements Mainline - Typical Lane Closures Peak hour Infrastructure will also be needed to provide restrictions communications between these components and the Traffic Operations Center.

Frontage Road City Streets - Typical lane Daytime, Construct one-way SB frontage road between (Court St. to closures; No work on mainline No Court St. and Wager St. Wager St.) expected restrictions Court Street Ramps Daytime, (Southbound Construct SB on and NB off ramps at Court St. Mainline and Court Street - Possible On, Possible connection to mainline and Court St. Possible typical lane closures Peak Hour Northbound Restrictions Off) Recreation Daytime, Trail (Sunset Construct multi-use recreation trail between City Streets - Typical lane No Ave. to Court Sunset Ave. and Court St. closures, if necessary restrictions St.) Consolidate EB Oriskany Blvd. intersections at Daytime, State Street Possible short duration ramp Ramp K and Cornelia St. into one signalized Possible Ramp to EB closures; Typical lane closures intersection with NB access to the Utica Peak Hour Oriskany Blvd. on Route 5S Auditorium. Restrictions SB Arterial Daytime, Possible short duration ramp Ramp to WB Lengthen the acceleration lane up to the railroad Possible closures; Typical lane closures Oriskany Blvd. crossing. Peak Hour on Route 5A ("Ski Ramp") Restrictions CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3 - FY 15/16 Letting ($51.85 M) Work Zone Traffic Control Activity Description When Plan Daytime. Mainline New alignment to the west. Raise profile Night Viaduct between Warren St. and Columbia St. New construction Replacement bridges over Court St., Columbia St., LaFayette 3 Options under consideration: unlikely to & Court Street St., and Routes 5A/5S. MSES walls between See discussion in Section be Interchange the new bridges and between Warren St. and 3.3.1.7(2). acceptable with Court St. Construct southbound off ramp to in Southbound Court St. Construct SPUI at Court St. residential Off Ramp area. Daytime, Oriskany Blvd. Possible short duration ramp Reconstruct ramps to extend north. Peak Hour Loop Ramps closures restrictions Daytime, Possible short duration ramp possible Varick St. Construct new ramp from EB Route 5A ramp to closure for tie-in. Typical lane peak hour Ramp LaFayette St. closure on LaFayette St. restrictions for ramp Frontage Road Construct 2-way street on west side of mainline Typical lane closures on city Daytime, no (Spring St. to between Spring St. and Columbia Street. streets as needed. restrictions. Columbia St.) Stormwater Treatment Proposed work to be determined. To be determined Daytime Practice(s)

3-24 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.3.1.7-4 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PHASING/WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN Remove Typical lane closures on city Remaining streets. Possible short duration Daytime, Demolish existing bridge including Existing total closures to remove spans Peak Hour substructures. Mainline over Columbia St., LaFayette Restrictions Viaduct St., and Routes 5A/5S Daytime, no restrictions. Nighttime Public Parking Construct parking area and access street on maybe (Between east side of mainline between Court St. and City Streets - Typical lane possible if Court St. and Columbia St. Construct parking area between closures as needed. disruption LaFayette St.) Columbia St. and LaFayette St. to businesses is an issue. Remaining Recreation Construct recreation trail from Court St. to Utica City Streets - Typical lane Daytime, no Trail North of Auditorium. closures as needed. restrictions. Court St. Remaining Final Pavement Markings, Signing, Daytime, Incidental Landscaping, Lighting, Staging Area(s) Typical lane closures as needed. Peak Hour Construction Restoration Restrictions

The first construction phase will include work at two sites to mitigate access and mobility impacts that are anticipated during phase 3. At the first site, Lincoln Avenue will be extended to meet Route 921B (Burrstone Road) at a new traffic signal. This will allow northbound traffic to exit the arterial prior to entering the project area and it will provide an alternate route via Lincoln Avenue to downtown Utica and to destinations north and east of the city. This improvement will also have a permanent benefit of allowing Lincoln Avenue to function more as a frontage road enhancing mobility and access along the east side of the arterial.

The second site will be at the northern terminus of NYS Route 921W (Champlin Avenue). Champlin Avenue will be extended a short distance north across a former gas station property to intersect directly with Route 5A. This will provide a critical alternate route to area hospitals for emergency vehicles originating from areas north of Utica. Vehicles will exit the arterial at the Routes 5A/5S (Oriskany Boulevard) interchange prior to entering the project area and travel west on Route 5A and then south on Champlin Avenue. Connecting Champlin Avenue to Route 5A also has a permanent benefit of connecting two state highways, eliminating a gap in the system, and enhancing regional mobility.

The third construction phase will involve major work on the mainline arterial that will significantly disrupt traffic flow and operations (bridge replacements and construction of the Court Street interchange). As summarized below, there are three options under consideration for work zone traffic control in this phase.

Phase 3, Option 1 – Total Closure with Off-Site Detour Close the entire arterial between Noyes Street and the Routes 5A/5S interchange Remove southbound traffic at westbound Route 5A (Ramp I) Remove northbound through (non-local) traffic at Route 5/8/12/840 interchange Official detour route would follow Route 840 and Route 5A Allow the arterial to remain open northbound to Noyes Street for local traffic Connections made at the mitigation sites (Lincoln Avenue/Burrstone Road and Route 5A/Champlin Avenue) during Phase 1 will provide alternate travel routes in addition to the official detour Southbound traffic to downtown Utica and points east will utilize the Routes 5A/5S interchange (Ramps H, J, and K) This option will likely result in the shortest construction time but, it may also result in the most delays and disruption to traffic.

3-25 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Phase 3, Option 2 – Directional (Southbound) Closure with Off-Site Detour Close the arterial in the southbound direction and remove southbound traffic at westbound Route 5A (Ramp I) Official southbound detour route would follow westbound Route 5A and eastbound Route 840 Maintain northbound arterial traffic on the existing northbound lanes except at Court Street and at the Routes 5A/5S interchange. At Court Street northbound traffic would be reduced to a single lane and use the northbound exit ramp, previously constructed in Phase 2, to bypass the new bridge location. Two alternatives are available for maintaining northbound traffic north of Court Street: o Under the first alternative, northbound traffic would travel across Court Street to the existing right northbound lane of the arterial via a temporary connection constructed in the southwest corner of the Mill Square parking lot. Court Street could be closed at this intersection to provide free flow conditions for northbound arterial traffic, otherwise a temporary traffic signal will be needed if Court Street remains open. At the Routes 5A/5S interchange, the existing northbound exit ramp (Ramp E) would be used to bypass the new bridge location over Routes 5A/5S and traffic would return to the existing northbound lanes of the arterial via a temporary connection from Ramp E. o Under the second alternative, northbound traffic would be detoured to Court Street and State Street and would return to the northbound arterial via Ramp A. Connections made at the mitigation sites (Lincoln Avenue/Burrstone Road and Route 5A/Champlin Avenue) during Phase 1 will provide alternate travel routes in addition to the official detour This option avoids staged construction of new bridges and retaining walls. This option will likely result in a construction duration similar to Option 1 but, it may result in less delays and disruption to traffic along the detour route.

Phase 3, Option 3 – Maintain One Lane Each Direction Reduce the number of lanes on the arterial from two to one in each direction Maintain all arterial traffic (one-lane each direction) on the existing northbound lanes except at Court Street and at the Routes 5A/5S interchange. At Court Street, use the northbound exit ramp, previously constructed in Phase 2, to bypass the new bridge location. Two alternatives are available for maintaining northbound traffic north of Court Street: o Under the first alternative, traffic would use the existing northbound lanes of the arterial via a temporary connection constructed in the southwest corner of the Mill Square parking lot. Court Street could be closed at this intersection to provide free flow conditions for arterial traffic, otherwise a temporary traffic signal will be needed if Court Street remains open. At the Routes 5A/5S interchange, northbound traffic would use the existing northbound exit ramp (Ramp E) to bypass the new bridge location over Routes 5A/5S and traffic would return to the existing northbound lanes of the arterial via a temporary connection from Ramp E. Southbound traffic would use the existing right northbound lane of the arterial. This option would require staged construction of the proposed bridge over Routes 5A/5S. o Under the second alternative, northbound traffic would be detoured to Court Street and State Street and would return to the northbound arterial via Ramp A. At the Routes 5A/5S interchange, southbound traffic would use the existing northbound exit ramp (Ramp E) to bypass the new bridge location over Routes 5A/5S via a temporary connection from Ramp E and traffic would proceed to Court Street in the existing right northbound lane of the arterial. This option avoids staged construction of the proposed bridge over Routes 5A/5S. Connections made at the mitigation sites (Lincoln Avenue/Burrstone Road and Route 5A/Champlin Avenue) during Phase 1 will provide alternate travel routes in addition to the official detour. Traffic disruption is confined to the North South Arterial corridor avoiding detours along other major travel routes. This option will likely result in a construction duration similar to Options 1 and 2 if staged construction is avoided. Staged construction may add 3 to 6 months to the construction duration.

All three options are under consideration. A final selection will be made after additional public involvement and comments are received at the public hearing. The final work zone traffic control plans

3-26 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

will need to be coordinated with local officials, emergency services, special events, businesses and residents.

Accessible and ADA compliant routes for pedestrians will be provided and maintained during construction. Accessibility for bicyclists during construction on roadways other than the arterial shall be maintained. Routes for emergency vehicles will be maintained and open during construction. The details for the work zone traffic control will be prepared and evaluated during final design.

B. Special Provisions Due to the close proximity to residential homes, night time construction will not be utilized. The use of work restrictions during peak travel times is anticipated during Phases 1 and 2. Currently, no lane closures are permitted on the arterial weekdays from 7:00-9:00 am and 3:00–6:00 pm. Adherence to these lane closure restrictions will not be feasible during Phase 3. The use of time related contract provisions (A+B Bidding, Incentive/Disincentive Clauses, Lane Rental) will be evaluated during final design. Temporary and permanent Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) and Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS) will be used during construction.

C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010) A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of:

A Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan A Transportation Operations (TO) component A Public Information component (PI)

3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis The proposed project will significantly improve safety for all highway users within the project limits. Much of the project‟s safety benefit will be realized by the elimination of the three signalized intersections on the arterial at Sunset Avenue, Warren Street and Court Street. As discussed in Section 2.3.1.8 and Appendix C, these intersections contribute greatly to the crash history. The project will create safer free flow conditions and will eliminate conflicts between mainline through traffic and traffic traveling east and west across the arterial.

A reduction in crashes is also expected with the addition of acceleration lanes for the southbound entrance ramp from westbound Route 5A (Ramp G) and the southbound exit ramp to westbound Route 5A (Ramp I).

See Sections 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2 for discussions of the project‟s safety improvements and benefits for pedestrians and bicyclists.

In the southbound direction, the changes in speed limit (55 mph to 40 mph) and highway character (full access control freeway to signalized arterial) that currently occur at Court Street will move to the approach to the Noyes Street intersection. This has created concern that the project may cause a significant increase in accidents at Noyes Street. This is not supported by current accident data.

Eighty-seven percent of the accidents on the arterial involve only northbound or southbound vehicles with most accidents occurring at the intersections. Rear-end accidents account for almost 64% of the total, and occur most frequently at the intersection of Sunset Avenue due to improper mainline turning movements and the starting and stopping of traffic during daily peak travel periods. During the most recent three year period, seven rear-end accidents occurred in the southbound direction at Court Street while twelve occurred in the northbound direction. This, combined with the fact that the highest number of rear-end accidents occur at Sunset Avenue (the mid-point of the signalized corridor), indicates that driver inattention during congested periods is the predominant contributing factor in the cause of these accidents not drivers reacting to changes in speed limits and highway character. Because existing sight distance to the Court Street signal is limited by a ten story warehouse adjacent to the viaduct, it is reasonable to expect a higher number of southbound rear-end accidents than northbound but, this is not

3-27 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

the case. Southbound sight distance to the Noyes Street signal is, and will be, much greater than at Court Street. The project will not substantially increase safety problems at Noyes Street.

The project also will not adversely impact existing conditions which would lead to increased accident rates at the Oswego Street intersection. The project will have virtually no influence on this intersection because the two are separated by the Noyes Street intersection.

The Highway Safety Investigation provided in Appendix C recommended that the existing interchange of the arterial with Routes 5A/5S be reconstructed to a Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI). This recommendation was considered during the earlier project scoping phase and was dismissed from further consideration. The proposal involved reconfiguring the interchange to a SPUI with the ramp termini controlled by a new signal system on Routes 5A/5S beneath the Arterial. The existing bridges (BINs 1073850, 1073870, 100228A and 100228B) would be eliminated. However, new ramp bridges would be required to carry the northbound exit and the southbound entrance ramps over Columbia Street and the mainline Route 5/8/12 bridges over CSX/AMTRAK (BINs 1002291 & 1002292) would have to be widened to accommodate the speed change lanes. The ramps in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the interchange would necessitate that Lafayette Street be closed from Varick Street easterly to State Street. In addition, this plan would preclude having an exit ramp from Route 5/8/12 southbound to Court Street because of insufficient length to develop both the southbound entrance from Route 5A/5S and the exit to Court Street. Both of these results were deemed to have an unacceptable adverse effect on local access and mobility.

All necessary highway safety appurtenances such as guide railing, median barrier, signing, impact attenuators, etc. will be installed to current standards and warrants.

3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access (Refer to Section 3.3.1.7(2) for a discussion of the anticipated impacts during construction) The proposed Court Street interchange, and other proposed improvements on Court Street, will improve access to West Utica for emergency vehicles using Court Street. Closure of the Sunset Avenue intersection will require a new response route for EMS and Fire services (See Section 2.3.1.9). No significant increase in response times is expected. The use of Noyes Street will provide for similar, or in some cases, faster response times than the existing route. See run time study results in Appendix C. Installation of a traffic signal pre-emption system at the intersection of Routes 5/8/12 and Noyes street will also enhance response times and safety. This work will be included in another project (PIN 2805.15).

3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues No changes are proposed on the North South Arterial or on city streets.

The proposed extension of Lincoln Avenue to a new intersection with Burrstone Road will result in the loss of approximately 35 employee parking spaces located on the street and along the face of the building at Indium Corporation. A replacement parking area south of the plant between the connection and the arterial is proposed. This area is over Nail Creek and a permanent easement will need to be retained over the culvert. The area could be utilized by Indium through a Use and Occupancy permit or the property could be surplused to Indium.

The proposed Court Street interchange and widening of Court Street will impact a Brodock Press employee parking lot located on the southwest corner of the Court Street and Lincoln Avenue intersection. Replacement parking will be constructed on the west side of their building adjacent to the main parking lot. Mohawk Valley Knitting Machinery Co. and Empire Bath & Kitchen are also located on the north side of Brodock Press. The proposed project will provide improved access on the west side of all three of these businesses between Court Street and Columbia Street. Public parking will also be constructed in the area that will become available by realigning the arterial to the west of its existing location. The realignment of the arterial to the west will also provide opportunities for trucking operation and parking improvements for Compassion Coalition.

3-28 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

3.3.1.11. Lighting Existing lighting impacted by the proposed construction will be replaced. Existing deficient lighting within the project limits that is not directly impacted by the proposed project will be replaced. Pedestrian scale lighting will be installed where warranted. Where feasible, best practices to reduce and minimize light pollution in the project area will be used.

3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction Ownership and maintenance responsibilities discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.12 will remain the same except for the following changes and additions:

The new bridge at the Court Street interchange will be owned and maintained by New York State. The proposed frontage road along the west side of Routes 5/8/12 between Wager Street and Court Street will be owned and maintained by the City of Utica. The proposed ramp from eastbound Route 5A to Lafayette Street (terminating opposite Varick Street) will be owned and maintained by New York State. The proposed pedestrian bridge will be owned by New York State and maintained by the City of Utica. The proposed multi-use recreation trail will be owned and maintained by the City of Utica. The section of Lincoln Avenue between Roberts Street and Court Street will be removed. The City of Utica will determine the future ownership and maintenance status. The section of Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and Routes 5/8/12 will be removed. The City of Utica will determine the future ownership and maintenance status. Parking and improved access will be constructed in the area between Court Street and Columbia Street that will become available by realigning the arterial to the west of its existing location. Ownership and maintenance responsibilities are to be determined for this area. Fay Street will be relocated between Spring Street and Columbia Street. The City of Utica will retain ownership and maintenance responsibilities. The proposed extension of Route 921W (Champlin Avenue) to a new intersection with Route 5A will be owned and maintained by New York State. The proposed extension of Lincoln Avenue to a new signalized intersection with Route 921B (Burrstone Road) will be owned and maintained by the City of Utica. The new traffic signal will be owned and maintained by New York State. Existing ramps BA and BB at the Burrstone Road Interchange with Routes 5/8/12 will be removed.

3.3.1.13. Constructability Review The Regional Construction Group has been actively involved in the scoping and preliminary design of this project.

An independent Value Engineering Study was conducted for this project by NCE, Value Management Specialists in June 2009. This study examined constructability issues and explored opportunities to improve the project. As summarized in Exhibit 3.3.1.13, several recommendations from this study were accepted or conditionally accepted for inclusion in the project. The final report and detailed dispositions of the recommendations are available for review upon request.

3-29 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.3.1.13 Value Engineering Study Summary Future Total Life Approved Proposal Initial Cost Value Engineering Proposals Cost Cycle Cost Regional Reference Savings Savings Savings Disposition Obtain a nighttime variance to permit Design Design Design Conditionally CP-14 additional shifts Suggestion Suggestion Suggestion Accepted Shift the mainline to the west at Court CP-15 $10,662,000 N/A $10,662,000 Rejected Street to simplify construction staging Use the new ramps as detour to construct Design Design Design Conditionally CP-16 Court Street Bridge Suggestion Suggestion Suggestion Accepted Shift the mainline to the west at Route 5A CP-19 $10,123,000 N/A $10,123,000 Rejected to simplify construction staging Construct the substructure for Route 5A Conditionally CP-21 $837,000 N/A $837,000 bridge under existing bridge. Accepted Partially depress the mainline and IG-04 $2,094,000 N/A $2,094,000 Rejected partially elevate the crossroads Design Design Design Conditionally IG-08 Eliminate transitions on the bridge deck Suggestion Suggestion Suggestion Accepted Eliminate the signalized intersections at IG-12 ($86,000) N/A ($86,000) Rejected Noyes and Oswego Street Use a design exception to maintain the IG-14 $2,404,000 N/A $2,404,000 Rejected existing curve (near warehouse) Use high-tension cable barrier in the Design Design Design IG-25 median south of Court Street in a 16‟ Rejected Suggestion Suggestion Suggestion median Shift the mainline PVI southerly ±300‟ to Conditionally IG-26 Sta. 195+00 to lower the profile between $4,395,000 N/A $4,395,000 Accepted Court Street and Columbia Street Evaluate the viability of constructing the Design Design Design IS-01 Accepted high fill embankments Suggestion Suggestion Suggestion Use three-sided precast structures (i.e. Conditionally IS-04 Con-Span or Bebo Arch) at Lafayette and $2,875,000 N/A $2,875,000 Accepted Columbia Streets Rehabilitate the elevated viaduct and on- IS-06A grade portion of the Arterial and defer the $44,048,000 N/A $44,048,000 Rejected Court Street interchange Rehabilitate the elevated viaduct and on- IS-06B grade portion of the Arterial and provide $2,183,000 N/A $2,183,000 Rejected the Court Street interchange Recycle the granular materials generated Conditionally IS-18 from building demolition for road $963,000 N/A $963,000 Accepted construction Use the shallowest superstructure Conditionally IS-21 $221,000 N/A $221,000 possible at Court Street Accepted Move the ramps at Court Street to permit Conditionally IS-28 $1,106,000 N/A $1,106,000 earth slopes where possible Accepted MT-02 Eliminate the new ramp to Varick Street $149,000 $149,000 N/A Rejected Upgrade Lincoln Avenue north of Burrstone Road with temporary pavement MT-03 ($225,000) N/A ($225,000) Accepted and operate as a one-way roadway detour

3-30 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.3.1.13 Value Engineering Study Summary Future Total Life Approved Proposal Initial Cost Value Engineering Proposals Cost Cycle Cost Regional Reference Savings Savings Savings Disposition Eliminate Fay Street between Robert TT-11 $38,000 N/A $38,000 Rejected Street and Court Street Provide buttonhook ramps for the S-E/W and E/W-N at Court Street with the TT-12 ($2,222,000) N/A ($2,222,000) Rejected terminal intersection located on Robert Street (modified Alternative 2) Provide a tight urban diamond at Court Conditionally TT-13 ($1,204,000) N/A ($1,204,000) Street (modified Alternative 2) Accepted Stage the Court Street interchange by initially constructing the ramps to Design Design Design Conditionally TT-24 accommodate mainline traffic and defer Suggestion Suggestion Suggestion Accepted the bridge TT-25 Close Lafayette Street at the Arterial $3,368,000 N/A $3,368,000 Rejected Provide the E/W-N ramp at the Court TT-26 ($1,204,000) N/A ($1,204,000) Rejected Street interchange

3.3.2. Multimodal

3.3.2.1. Pedestrians It is Federal and NYSDOT policy to consider safe accommodations for pedestrians on highway and street projects and to provide for the special needs of disabled and elderly persons on all projects that include pedestrian facilities.

This project includes significant improvements for pedestrians throughout the project area. As shown in Section 2.3.2.1, Court Street has the highest volume of pedestrians crossing the arterial. The proposed grade separated interchange at this location will eliminate the conflict between pedestrians and arterial traffic, significantly improving safety. Pedestrians will be able to walk along Court Street and cross under the arterial while benefiting from much lower conflicting traffic volumes and speeds at the proposed ramps. Pedestrian signals, refuge islands, and high visibility crosswalks will be provided at ramp crossings.

With the proposed elimination of the arterial intersections at Sunset Avenue and Warren Street, existing at-grade pedestrian crossings will also be eliminated. To more safely accommodate pedestrian crossings at these locations, a pedestrian bridge is proposed in the area of the existing Sunset Avenue intersection. Pedestrian safety will be significantly improved with the proposed pedestrian bridge as conflicts with traffic on the arterial will be eliminated.

Pedestrians will continue to be prohibited, by law, from accessing Routes 5/8/12 and its ramps. The project will incorporate elements to make unauthorized and unsafe crossings by pedestrians impossible to the extent feasible.

The proposed recreation trail will provide improved pedestrian mobility and connectivity in the community. Future plans for connection of the trail south to the Rayhill Trail and north to the Erie Canal Trail will provide opportunities for improved regional pedestrian mobility and connectivity. These proposed improvements and future plans will foster a healthier, safer, and more sustainable environment for residents and system users.

3-31 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

At the Lincoln Avenue and Burrstone Road traffic mitigation site, pedestrians will continue to use the existing sidewalks along Lincoln Avenue and will be able to access the existing sidewalk system on Burrstone Road with the extension of the Lincoln Avenue sidewalks.

All pedestrian facilities constructed will be accessible and will meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. Accessibility for pedestrians during construction shall be maintained.

A Pedestrian Generator Checklist is included in Appendix I.

3.3.2.2. Bicyclists It is Federal and NYSDOT policy to consider providing safe and adequate accommodations for bicycling on highway and street projects.

This project includes significant improvements for bicyclists throughout the project area. The proposed grade separated interchange at Court Street will eliminate the conflict between bicyclists and arterial traffic, significantly improving safety. Bicyclists will be able to share the road along Court Street and cross under the arterial while benefiting from much lower conflicting traffic volumes and speeds at the proposed ramps.

Bicyclists will be able to use the proposed pedestrian bridge which will provide another crossing that eliminates conflicts with traffic on the arterial.

Bicyclists will continue to be prohibited, by law, from accessing Routes 5/8/12 and its ramps. The project will incorporate elements to make unauthorized and unsafe crossings by bicyclists impossible to the extent feasible.

The proposed recreation trail will also provide improved bicycle mobility and connectivity in the community. Future plans for connection of the trail south to the Rayhill Trail and north to the Erie Canal Trail will provide opportunities for improved regional bicycle mobility and connectivity. The trail will also link to the Utica Loop A bike route which follows Columbia St., Fay St. and Court St. (west of the arterial). Columbia St. and Lafayette St. are components of an on-road bike route link. These proposed improvements and future plans will foster a healthier, safer, and more sustainable environment for residents and system users.

Bicycles will continue to share the road with the local traffic that utilizes Lincoln Avenue but, will now have the added advantage of a direct connection to Burrstone Road and the Utica Parkway a quarter mile to the east.

Accessibility for bicyclists during construction will be maintained.

3.3.2.3. Transit No changes are proposed.

3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports There are no airports, railroad stations or port entrances within the project limits.

3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) The proposed recreation trail will provide improved pedestrian and bicycle mobility and connectivity in the community. Future plans for connection of the trail south to the Rayhill Trail and north to the Erie Canal Trail will provide opportunities for improved regional bicycle and pedestrian mobility and connectivity.

3.3.3. Infrastructure

3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section Refer to Appendix A for typical sections.

3-32 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

3.3.3.1. (1) Right of Way Exhibit 3.3.3.1.1 provides a summary of the numbers and types of impacted properties in the project area. Appendix H contains a table with individual property information, plans showing impacted property locations, and the Conceptual Stage Relocation plan. Section 4.4.2 also contains additional information.

Exhibit 3.3.3.1.1 Property Impacts Summary Acquisition Type Partial Whole Property Acquisitions Property Total Number of Acquisitions Alternative Properties RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL Impacted Vacant or No Minor Strip Number of Properties Number of Relocation Acquisitions (Number of Households) Commercial Involved Relocations Relocations SPUI at 104 30 (51) 8 36 30 Court Street

3.3.3.1. (2) Curb Mainline Routes 5/8/12 will not be curbed. The proposed southbound frontage road along the arterial from Court Street to Wager Street will have 6” vertical faced curb on both sides of the roadway. The proposed extensions of Lincoln Avenue and Champlin Avenue, Court Street, and all other reconstructed city streets will have 6” vertical faced curb on both sides of the roadway.

3.3.3.1. (3) Grades The maximum grade on Routes 5/8/12 mainline will be 2.9%. The maximum grade of all the ramps will be 8%. The maximum grade of Routes 5A/5S will be 3.5%. The maximum grade on the proposed southbound frontage road will be 1.1%. The maximum grade on the new Lincoln Avenue connection to Burrstone Road (Rte. 921B) will be 5%. The maximum grade on the new Champlin Avenue (Rte. 921W) will be 5.3%

3.3.3.1. (4) Intersection Geometry and Conditions See the project plans in Appendix A for proposed intersection geometries.

3.3.3.1. (5) Roadside Elements: (a) Snow Storage, Sidewalks, Utility Strips, Bikeways, Bus Stops – A 5 ft. wide snow storage area will be provided between the curb and sidewalk where feasible. All new and replaced sidewalks will be a minimum of 5 ft. wide with a maximum cross slope of 2%. No dedicated utility strips are proposed. No dedicated bikeways are proposed. The proposed recreation/multi-use trail will be a minimum of 10 ft. wide and will accommodate bicycles. There are no proposed bus stops or existing bus stops impacted by the project. (b) Driveways – Routes 5/8/12 will have full control of access within the project limits therefore, there will be no driveways. Driveways impacted by the proposed project will be modified to comply with the current NYSDOT “Policy and Standards for Design of Entrances to State Highways” where feasible and appropriate. Access management techniques, such as consolidation of driveways, will be used where feasible and appropriate. (c) Clear Zone - The clear zone along Routes 5/8/12 will be approximately 10 ft. wide and will be refined during final design to adjust for slopes, roadway curvature, etc.

3-33 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements

3.3.3.2. (1) Non-Standard Features - The feasible alternative complies with the geometric features and cross section elements in the design criteria tables in Section 3.2.3.2 except for the following elements shown in the following exhibits.

Exhibit 3.3.3.2.(1)a Existing Non-Standard Geometric Design Elements To Be Retained Routes 5/8/12 Ramps at Routes 5A/5S Related Existing Conditions To Be Element Ramp Standard Criteria Accident Retained History 22 ft., Case II Condition D B Varies 15 ft. to 16 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 26 ft., Case II Condition D Lane Width E (1 Lane) 16 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 27 ft., Case II Condition D K Varies 22 ft. to 26 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 A Without curb, 3 ft left, 6 ft right 1.5 ft., Left No D With curb in urban areas, 2 ft. curb offset Varies 2‟4” to 3‟5”, Left No Shoulder Width J desirable 0 ft., Left No K HMD Section 2.7.5.2 C Exhibit 2-10 0 ft. Curb Offset, Left and Right No B 7.8% No Maximum 7% E 8% No Grade HDM Section 7.6, Exhibit 7-11 I 8% No B 146 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance) No D 160 ft. (@ 25 mph design speed) 143 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance) No Stopping Sight 200 ft. Minimum (@ 30 mph design speed) 138 ft. & 164 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance E No HDM Section 7.6, Exhibit 7-11 Distance) I 98 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance) No A 6 ft. min. right side, left side 3 ft. min. 1‟6”, Left Horizontal D Under structure additional 4 ft outside 2‟4”, Left No Clearance J shoulders 0 ft., Left No K HDM Section 2.7.5.2 I 0 ft., Right and Left No Urban Min. “C” Level of Service A D No HDM-Section 2.7.5.2. N

Exhibit 3.3.3.2.(1)b Existing Non-Standard Geometric Design Elements To Be Retained Routes 5/8/12 Ramps at Route 921B (Burrstone Road) Related Existing Conditions To Be Element Ramp Standard Criteria Accident Retained History 38 ft., Case II Condition D AA 22 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 Lane Width 30 ft., Case II Condition D AB Varies 15 ft. to 22 ft. No HDM Section 2.7.5.2 Exhibit 2-9 Superelevation AA 6% Maximum All ramps, e max. = 6.25% (3/4”/ft.) No Rate AB HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G

3-34 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.3.3.2.(1)c Existing Non-Standard Geometric Design Elements To Be Retained Routes 5A/5S Related Existing Conditions To Be Element Standard Criteria Accident Retained History 425 ft Minimum 277 ft (HSD) Stopping Sight Distance No HDM Section 2.7.2.2 H, Table 2-4 419 (SSD)

Exhibit 3.3.3.2.(1)d Existing Non-Standard Geometric Design Elements To Be Retained City Streets (Lincoln Avenue) Related Existing Conditions To Be Element Standard Criteria Accident Retained History 250 ft. (@ e = 4.0%) 160 ft. (Lincoln Ave., just north of the Horizontal Curvature No HDM Section 2.7.4.2 F, Table 2-8 Sherman Place intersection)

Exhibit 3.3.3.2.(1)e Proposed Non-Standard Geometric Design Elements To Be Created Element Location Standard Criteria Proposed Condition Proposed Route 5/8/12 Level of Service Urban Min. “C” Southbound Exit Ramp D (ETC+30) (Ramp) HDM-Section 2.7.5.2. N to Court Street Champlin Ave. Extension 250 ft. Minimum Stopping Sight to Route 5A (Sta. 14+44 HDM Section 2.7.2.2 H, 98 ft. (Headlight Sight Distance) Distance to Sta. 15+44) Table 2-4

A Non-Standard Feature Justification Form for each critical design element that does not comply with the design criteria is provided in Appendix F. A description of the feature and information in accordance with the NYDSOT Highway Design Manual, Section 2.8, Requirements for Justification of Non-Standard Features, to support approval of the non-standard features is included.

Two existing non-standard features with related accident histories on Routes 5/8/12 (horizontal curvature and stopping sight distance, see Exhibit 2.3.3.2(1)a) are being corrected with this project. These improvements will provide enhanced safety for motorists.

3.3.3.2. (2) Non-Conforming Features – The following is a listing of proposed non conforming features that do not comply with normally accepted engineering policy or practice.

The proposed acceleration lane at the terminus of the ramp from southbound Routes 5/8/12 to westbound Route 5A (Ramp I) will be 280 feet long. Current practice recommends 450 feet for acceleration. The length of the proposed lane is constrained downstream of the ramp by the location of an at-grade railroad crossing and signalized intersection at Schuyler Street. The length has been maximized and avoids impacts to the railroad and intersection. The proposed lane addresses a history of rear end accidents at this location and it will be a significant improvement over the existing yield condition that has no provision for acceleration.

As shown in Appendix C, Table D, the following intersection turning movements are anticipated to have queuing lengths that will exceed the feasible length of the turning lanes at or prior to ETC+30: o Westbound left turn at the Court Street interchange o Southbound left turn at the Court Street interchange o Southbound left turn at the intersection of Court Street and State Street

3-35 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

In all cases, the length and number of the turning lanes is constrained by the surrounding urban environment and spacing of intersections. The maximum length and number of turning lanes will be provided as physically possible while minimizing impacts to adjacent properties.

The distance between the southbound entrance loop ramp (Ramp G) from Routes 5A/5S and the proposed southbound exit ramp to Court Street is 1200 feet. This is less than the recommended minimum ramp terminal spacing of 1600 feet (2004 AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Exhibit 10-68). Because the distance is less than 1500 feet, the successive speed change lanes will be connected with an auxiliary lane. A weaving analysis using Highway Capacity Manual procedures indicates that this lane will operate at LOS C or better at ETC+30.

With the proposed elimination of Ramp BA at the Burrstone Road (Route 921B) interchange, the existing non-conforming weaving distance between Ramps AA and BA will be addressed. The remaining acceleration lane at the terminus of ramp AA to northbound Routes 5/8/12 will be 600 feet long. Current practice recommends 1100 feet for acceleration. The length has been maximized and avoids impacts to Indium Corporation. The costs and impacts associated with providing a conforming length are greater than the minor benefits that would be realized.

3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulders A Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) was not required for this project because it is less than one center line mile in length.

The proposed pavement treatment for Routes 5/8/12 is full depth, full width Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCC), including shoulders. Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) was considered however, concrete moment slabs would be required with the use of HMA in the areas supported on MSES walls. The cost of PCC was nearly equal to the cost of HMA with moment slabs.

The pavement treatment for the segment of Court Street within the limits of the proposed interchange will also be PCC because of the expected high volume of turning movements. Portland Cement Treated Permeable Base may be omitted in this urban area.

All other new, reconstructed and/or rehabilitated pavements in the project will be HMA pavements (ramps, city streets, frontage roads).

No special pavement treatments are proposed.

3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems The existing closed drainage systems within the project limits will be replaced as needed. As the project will disturb more than one acre of soil, coverage under NYSDEC SPDES General Permit GP-0-10-001 will be required. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will need to be developed by NYSDOT for review and approval by NYSDEC. Permanent stormwater treatment practices will be incorporated into the new closed drainage systems. No modifications to standard drainage design practices, such as modification of the design storm, are anticipated.

3.3.3.5. Geotechnical No special techniques or considerations are needed.

3-36 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

3.3.3.6. Structures The existing bridges (BIN‟s 1002281, 1002282, 100228A and 100228B) that make up the viaduct located between Court Street and Routes 5A/5SA will be replaced. Rehabilitation of the viaduct structures was considered and determined not to be feasible as discussed in Section 3.1.

A new bridge will be constructed over Court Street, and replacement bridges will be constructed over Columbia Street, Lafayette Street, and Routes 5A/5S. In between these bridges, the arterial will be supported by internally stabilized retaining walls consisting of a mechanically stabilized earth system (MSES).

A new pedestrian bridge spanning Wheeler Ave., the arterial, and the proposed frontage road is proposed in the area of the existing Sunset Avenue intersection. A walkway rising from street level to the western end of the pedestrian bridge will be needed. The grade of the walkway will be compliant with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and it is anticipated that it will be supported by MSES walls. The eastern end of the pedestrian bridge will tie into the existing elevated terrain on the south side of the Lincoln Academy building.

Exhibit 3.3.3.6 summarizes key features of the proposed bridges. Exhibit 3.3.3.6 Proposed Structures Wheeler Routes 5A/5S Ave., Routes Columbia Lafayette Feature Crossed Court Street and Ramps K, 5/8/12, & Street Street J & H Frontage Road Bridge Identification TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Number (BIN) Work Type New Replacement Replacement Replacement New TBD (Steel TBD (Steel TBD (Steel Girder, Pre- Girder, Pre- TBD (Steel Girder, Pre- Cast Concrete Cast Concrete Girder or Pre- Bridge Type Steel Girder Cast Concrete Girder, or Pre- Girder, or Pre- Cast Concrete Girder, or Cast Concrete Cast Concrete Girder) Steel Truss) Arch) Arch) Number of Spans 1 1 1 2 1 or 2 See Appendix See Appendix A See Appendix A See Appendix A 10 Ft. min. Widths A for Typical for Typical for Typical for Typical width trail Sections Sections Sections Sections Electric for Electric for Electric for Electric for Electric for Utilities Carried Traffic Signals Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting and Lighting 15 ft 14 ft. minimum, 14 ft. minimum, 14 ft. minimum, 14 ft. minimum, Minimum, 14 ft. 6 in. 14 ft. 6 in. 14 ft. 6 in. 14 ft. 6 in. 15 ft. 6 in. Vertical desirable desirable desirable desirable Desirable Clearances (NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Table 2-2, Note 1) TBD (Based on 10 Ft. min. 10 Ft. min. 10 Ft. min. 4 ft w/guiderail horizontal Horizontal setback from setback from setback from 15 ft w/o stopping sight face of curb face of curb face of curb guiderail distance) NYSDOT LRFD Bridge AASHTO HL- Design AASHTO HL-93 AASHTO HL-93 AASHTO HL-93 93 Live Load, Specifications Live Load, and Live Load, and Live Load, and Live Load and NYS and the NYS Design NYS Design NYS Design Design Permit AASHTO Permit Vehicle Permit Vehicle Permit Vehicle Vehicle Guide Specifications for Design of

3-37 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 3.3.3.6 Proposed Structures Wheeler Routes 5A/5S Ave., Routes Columbia Lafayette Feature Crossed Court Street and Ramps K, 5/8/12, & Street Street J & H Frontage Road Pedestrian Bridges, 1st Edition (1997) MSES Wall MSES Wall MSES Wall MSES Wall Construction Construction Construction MSES Wall Associated Work Construction and Existing and Existing and Existing Construction Bridge Removal Bridge Removal Bridge Removal Waterway None None None None None

3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts There are no bridges or culverts over waterways within the project limits.

3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators All guiderail, bridge railing, median barriers and impact attenuators within the project limits will be evaluated during final design for conformance to design standards and replaced or repaired as necessary.

3.3.3.9. Utilities See Section 2.3.3.9 for a discussion of existing utilities within the project area. The project does not involve any major utility relocations, such as high voltage transmission lines or large gas transmission mains. Specific impacts to publicly and privately-owned utilities will be minimized and will be determined in greater detailed as the project progresses into the final design phase. No utility impacts are anticipated that would significantly alter the project scope, cost, and schedule.

In general, relocations of facilities shown in Exhibit 3.3.3.9 are anticipated.

There is potential for municipal utility betterments to be included in the project such as water, sanitary sewer, and storm water sewer line improvements. The necessary coordination with the City of Utica and the Mohawk Valley Water Authority (MVWA) will be done.

Exhibit 3.3.3.9 Location of Potential Utility Impacts Owner Type Location Side Length (FT) Impact City of Utica Sanitary Sewers TBD TBD TBD TBD MVWA Waterlines TBD TBD TBD TBD National Grid Low Pressure Gas Lines & TBD TBD TBD TBD Gas Services National Grid Overhead and Underground TBD TBD TBD TBD Electric Electric Lines and services Time Warner Overhead Cable TV Lines TBD TBD TBD TBD Cable Overhead and Underground Verizon TBD TBD TBD TBD Telephone Lines

3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities See Section 2.3.3.10 for a discussion of the recent abandonment of The New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway Corporation (NYS&W) Fay Street Branch siding. Most of the existing railroad right of way will be acquired under this project.

3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements Refer to Chapter 4 for complete discussion.

3-38 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

3.3.4.1. Landscape Development and Other Aesthetics Improvements Since the highway corridor closely follows the path of the former Chenango Canal, design of many of the new highway elements will incorporate canal themed highlights. The new pedestrian bridge and centerline concrete barrier will have canal oriented features. These features, along with new pavement and crosswalks, textured surfaces, new turf areas, fresh plantings, decorative pavers, vinyl fencing, and other aesthetic features, will together greatly improve the overall appearance of the highway corridor and surrounding areas. New elements and fixtures introduced to the streetscape will be selected to reflect and enhance the context and architecture of the existing structures as well as introduce elements from the past including manufactured limestone block to mimic the locks of the historic Chenango Canal, varied pavement applications, sculptures done by local artists, appurtenances such as ornamental street lighting, bollards, bike racks, benches, and decorative fencing along the multi-use recreational trail. The viewshed to the west will also be enhanced with the increased visibility of the Historic Brewery District from the southbound and northbound lanes as a result of the removal of the Fay Street warehouse.

Landscaping improvements along Oriskany Boulevard in the area of the interchange with the arterial, including the center median, will be included in the project.

At the Lincoln Avenue/Burrstone Road mitigation site, street trees and other plantings will be installed to act as a traffic calming measure to help slow traffic entering and exiting Lincoln Avenue.

At the Champlin Avenue/Route 5A mitigation site, the general character of this area will be relatively unchanged. Street trees will be extended to the intersection with Route 5A and other landscape and hardscape features will be installed to perpetuate the residential character.

3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements Where feasible, best practices to reduce and minimize light pollution in the project area will be used.

Also where feasible, permanent stormwater treatment practices that would enhance the aesthetics of the project area and improve water quality will be included in the project.

Other environmental enhancements such as fishing access, critter crossings, scenic overlooks, etc. will not be included in the project.

3.3.5. Miscellaneous There is no other pertinent information on the proposed conditions to discuss.

3-39 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and CONSEQUENCES

4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.1.1 Environmental Classification and Lead Agencies

NEPA Classification and Lead Agencies The Federal Highway Administration is the NEPA Lead Agency for this project. This Federal-Aid project does not qualify for a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion. The project is classified as a NEPA Class III project in accordance with 23 CFR 771. NEPA Class III projects require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment to determine the likely impact the proposed project alternatives will have on the environment.

A review of the completed NEPA Assessment Checklist indicates that there is (1) an effect on one structure and 5 sites eligible for, or listed, on the National Register of Historic Places (2) it is being evaluated to see if it is a Type I project under 23 CFR 772, “Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction”, (3) involves changes in travel patterns, (4)involves the acquisition of more than minor amounts of temporary or permanent right of way, (5) requires a Section 4(f) evaluation and determination in accordance with FHWA guidance, (6) involves commercial or residential displacement, (7) indicates a determination of an opinion of Adverse Effect, (8) involves a change in access control, and (9) involves known hazardous materials sites or previous land uses with potential for hazardous material within the right of way. The completed NEPA Assessment Checklist is included in Appendix B1.

SEQR Classification and Lead Agencies This project is a SEQR Unlisted/Non-Type II Action under 17 NYCRR Part 15. NYSDOT is the SEQR Lead Agency. The Department has determined that this project is a SEQR Unlisted/Non- Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15, “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act.” Non-Type II projects include actions for which the environmental impacts are not clearly established and require an Environmental Assessment. The project is being progressed as Non-Type II because of the acquisition of occupied dwellings or business structures; significant changes in passenger or vehicle traffic volumes, vehicle mix, local travel patterns or access; more than minor social, economic or environmental effects upon occupied dwelling units, businesses, abutting properties or other established human activities; and an effect on a district, building, structure or site eligible for, or listed on, the National Register of Historic Places.

The property at 521 Columbia Street has been determined to be National Register Eligible. There are also five historic sites that have been determined eligible and will require Data Recovery for mitigation of impacts. Under 17 NYCRR Part 15.14(d) (6), a Type II action has “no effect on any district, site, structure or object that is listed, or may be eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places...” This project, with its potential effects to these properties, does not meet the Type II criteria, and is therefore classified as a non-Type II (EA) project.

4.1.2 Cooperating, Participating, and Involved Agencies

NEPA Cooperating Agencies The following agencies have been identified as cooperating agencies in accordance with 23 CFR 771: -U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -Environmental Protection Agency

SEQR Involved and Interested Agencies The following agencies have been identified as Involved and Interested Agencies under SEQR:

4-1

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

-NYS Department of Environmental Conservation -NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

4.2 SOCIAL

The purpose of this section is to discuss the social environment of the project area. Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.4 describe the setting of the affected environment, the beneficial and adverse social and related environmental effects of each alternative under consideration, including the no-build alternative. In addition, each subsection describes the measures proposed to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. See Section 3.2 of this report for descriptions of the feasible alternatives.

The general community impact analysis area includes the portion of the City of Utica that surrounds or is immediately adjacent to Routes 5/8/12 (Utica North-South Arterial). Specifically, the analysis focused on the area bounded by State Street and Genesee Street on the East, Lenox Avenue on the West, Route 921B (Burrstone Road) on the South and Routes 5A/5S (Oriskany Boulevard) on the North. This area encompasses Tracts 201, 203, 209, 211.01 and 211.02 from the 2000 Census. The core project impact area has been defined by the boundaries of Census Tracts 209 and 211.01. See Figure 4.2 for a map of the analysis area.

Sources of information used to obtain the data for this analysis included data from the 2000 United States Census, personal contact with community leaders, visual inspections, the March 2007 Utica North-South Arterial Corridor Concept Study, and a survey of the affected area.

The survey was conducted by mail to examine conditions in the project area and to aid in the evaluation of the possible impacts the project may have on the community and on the quality of life of its residents. The survey included questions about the neighborhood, residents’ use of roads, views about traffic and road conditions, and opinions about the proposed project and no-build alternative. Demographic questions were also included. Pre-addressed and postage paid envelopes were provided for respondents to anonymously return completed surveys. The community survey area included the general and core project impact analysis areas described above. This area contains approximately 1643 developed properties. Surveys were mailed to 400 randomly selected residential properties. 50 surveys were returned as being undeliverable by the postal service. Of the 350 surveys delivered, 73 completed surveys were returned yielding a nearly 21% response rate. The survey questions and compiled responses are provided in Appendix D.

4-2

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Figure 4.2

4.2.1 Land Use

Comprehensive Plans and Zoning

Local Plans As listed below, there are a number of local planning efforts taking place in the project area. The feasible alternatives are consistent with and will not adversely impact any local plans.

City of Utica Master Plan - The City of Utica is currently developing a Master Plan. The Master Plan development began with a focus on three areas of the city: Downtown, Brewery District and the Cornhill area. A draft version of the Master Plan was released for public review and comment on July 13, 2010. It still needs to be approved by the Utica City Common Council. One of the draft goals of the plan is to create inviting, friendly streetscapes, enhanced gateways and

4-3

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

development of corridor plans. One strategy to accomplish this goal that is listed in the plan is to work with the New York State Department of Transportation to incorporate context sensitive solutions along the North-South Arterial. Consistent with this goal and strategy, elements included in the project are a dedicated pedestrian/bike trail adjacent to the corridor, historic lighting, street trees and landscaping, and opportunities to display public art.

Lincoln Avenue Corridor – The Municipal Housing Authority of the City of Utica (UMHA) and it’s non-profit affiliate, Rebuild Mohawk Valley Inc., have proposed constructing seven housing units (single-family or four-bedroom townhouses) on the west side of Lincoln Avenue between Warren and Roberts Street. Conceptual plans include construction of an access road in the rear of the project to allow for vehicle parking in basement garages designed as part of each home. No plan to move forward with this proposal has been developed. The proposed housing sites are all located within a Planned Development Commercial (PDC) zoning district. The zoning was amended from residential to PDC by the Utica City Common Council in 2005 in advance of commercial development for the site which never occurred. Under the current zoning designation, residential development would not be permitted. The zoning would need to be changed back to a residential designation prior to development. In April 2011, the City of Utica’s Department of Urban and Economic Development announced preliminary plans for 15 to 20 affordable apartment units for the same area.

The entire project area is located within the limits of the Utica Community Development Block Grant Target Area.

Currently, there are no local development plans for the traffic mitigation sites at Lincoln Ave./Burrstone Rd. and Route 5A/Champlin Ave.

Private Plans There are no approved private developments planned within the project area that will be adversely impacted by the feasible alternatives. The project area contains a moderate amount of private development. The following are potential projects:

Irish American Cultural Center - Vacant land, outside of the project area, on the southeast corner of Huntington and Columbia Streets was identified as the prime location for the Center. Construction of the Center is currently underway. The $2 million project will construct a two-story building that will house a pub, kitchen, meeting rooms and office space ready for use in early 2012.

Brodock Press, Inc. – Brodock Press has made numerous renovations to their building on Court Street. Their goal is to increase tenancy in the building. However, vehicular and pedestrian

4-4

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

access to existing parking has been problematic due to the current traffic patterns on Court Street, Lincoln Avenue and the North South Arterial. Improved access would provide enhanced opportunities for Brodock Press to lease available space in their building. Additional tenants, however, would generate increased traffic and create more parking concerns.

In recent years, private investment and redevelopment has been focused in the Historic Brewery District area and on Varick Street. The proposed ramp from eastbound Route 5A and the proposed interchange at Court Street will enhance access to this area which could encourage additional redevelopment.

Currently, there are no private development plans for the traffic mitigation sites at Lincoln Ave./Burrstone Rd. and Route 5A/Champlin Ave.

Regional & State Plans Long-Range Plan - The project area is listed as a potential growth corridor in the Herkimer- Oneida Counties Transportation Study (HOCTS) 2010-2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The feasible alternative addresses several of the goals and objectives outlined in the LRTP which include improving safety for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, improving highway and bridge infrastructure, and facilitating the movement of goods and services. The phased construction of this project is included in the LRTP. The construction costs of this project shown in Sections 1.5 and 3.2.1 are consistent with the estimated costs included in the LRTP.

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – Construction Phases I & II are on the approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as project numbers 2134.50 and 2134.41, respectively. Construction Phase III (PIN 2134.51) is currently programmed for letting in State fiscal year 2015/2016. See Exhibit 3.3.1.7-4 (Section 3.3.1.7(2)) for a detailed description of each construction phase.

NYSDOT Master Plan - The feasible alternatives are consistent with the goal for improving transportation mobility and reliability in NYSDOT’s “Strategies for a New Age: New York State’s Transportation Master Plan for 2030.” Additionally, Route 12 is identified as an important statewide corridor connecting the cities of Binghamton, Utica, and Watertown.

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) - Construction Phases I & II are on the current STIP in State fiscal years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, respectively.

The project is not part of an approved Congestion Management System or adequate Interim Congestion Management System. The project is not subject to a Major Investment Study (MIS).

Induced Development No foreseeable induced and substantial development, resulting in direct or indirect social, economic, and environmental impacts or adverse effects on the existing community or region, is expected from the no- build alternative or the feasible alternative. From a regional standpoint, the proposed operational and mobility improvements are minor and are not significant enough to alter regional travel patterns in ways that would encourage or induce significant development outside of the project area.

4-5

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Land Use and Zoning The project area is a collection of 18th, 19th, and 20th century buildings. The main concentrations of structures to the west of the arterial are single and multi-family homes with vacant lots and neighborhood businesses interspersed among them. To the east of the arterial, there is a mix of warehouse/factory, neighborhood business, auto repair, bar/restaurant, convenience store, parking lots, as well as some residential single and multi-family homes.

As shown in Figure 4.2.1, the majority of properties in the project area are zoned RT-1, Two Family-Low Density. Other zoning classifications located in the project area include:

I-1, Light Industrial CN, Neighborhood Commercial CC, Community Commercial CCBD, Central Business District CH, Highway Commercial RM-1, Multifamily, Low Density PDE, Planned Development Extraordinary PDC, Planned Development Commercial

Most of the properties impacted by the build alternatives are zoned RT-1 followed by CN and I1 zoned properties. The project will not affect local zoning.

4-6

Figure 4.2.1 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

4-7

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Public Facilities and Community Services Exhibit 4.2.1 lists the existing public facilities and community services located within or immediately adjacent to the community impact analysis area. Figure 4.2.2 provides a map showing the location of each facility. None of the feasible alternatives will require the relocation of any public facility or community services. Other direct adverse or beneficial impacts to these entities and the indirect impacts resulting from the displacement of households and businesses are noted in Exhibit 4.2.1.

Exhibit 4.2.1 Public Facilities and Community Services Indirect Impacts Facility Direct Impacts (Beneficial and/or Entity Location (Beneficial Type Adverse) and/or Adverse) Minor right of way acquisition is necessary for construction of the pedestrian bridge and sidewalk connection to Lincoln Ave. Construction of a cul-de-sac will maintain Holy Trinity Church 1206 Lincoln functionality of the private roadway (Wheeler None Ave. Ave.) on the west of the facility. There are no impacts to the Church’s plans for a new parking lot on the south side of the facility near the proposed eastern end of the pedestrian bridge. St. Joseph/St. Patrick 704-708 Catholic Church None None Columbia St.

Deliverance First Places of Ministries Sunset Ave. None None Worship St. Peter & Paul Ukrainian Church Hamilton St. None None

Bosnian Islamic Association of Utica Court St. None None

Cornerstone Church Plant St. None None

House of God Genesee St. None None

Foursquare Gospel Church Mulberry St. None None

The program will relocate to a new facility outside of the project area in 2010. The Lincoln Avenue facility is being marketed for continued educational use by Holy Trinity Church. Minor Lincoln Academy right of way acquisition is necessary for (Alternative Education construction of the pedestrian bridge and 1206 Lincoln Program located at sidewalk connection to Lincoln Ave. None Ave. Holy Trinity Church) Construction of a cul-de-sac will maintain functionality of the roadway on the west of the Schools facility. There are no impacts to the Church’s plans for a new parking lot on the south side of the facility near the proposed eastern end of the pedestrian bridge. Kernan Elementary School York St. None None

Pratt at Munson Williams Proctor Arts Genesee St. None None Institute (College)

4-8

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 4.2.1 Public Facilities and Community Services Highway safety improvements will reduce Reduction in Utica City Police Route 5S accidents and need for emergency services. number of Department and City (Oriskany The proposed Court St. interchange will properties Court Complex Blvd.) improve access to West Utica for emergency requiring Police

vehicles using Court Street. Dept. Services Highway safety improvements will reduce accidents and need for emergency services. The proposed Court St. interchange will City Public improve access to West Utica for emergency Safety and vehicles using Court Street. Closure of the Emergency Sunset Ave. intersection will require a new Reduction in Services Utica City Fire response route for EMS and Fire services (See number of Department Station Section 2.3.1.9). No significant increase in properties Park Ave. #6 response times is expected. The use of Noyes requiring Fire Street will provide for similar, or in some cases, Dept. and EMS faster response times than the existing route. services See run time study results in Appendix C. Installation of a traffic signal pre-emption system at the intersection of Routes 5/8/12 and Noyes street will also enhance response times and safety. The realignment of Routes 5/8/12 to the west Compassion Coalition Lafayette St. will provide opportunities for trucking operation None

and parking improvements. Salvation Army Thrift Store Lafayette St None None

Community Utica Public Library Services Genesee St. None None

Mid York Library System Lincoln Ave. None None

West Utica Senior Center Court St. None None

Faxton Hospital Burrstone Rd. None None

Heritage Home Burrstone Rd. None None Health Care Facilities Mohawk Valley Psychiatric Center & Pinefield Children & York St. None None Adolescent Unit

Hirt Neighborhood Park Sunset Ave. None None

Lincoln Neighborhood Park Lincoln Ave. None None Recreation,

Entertainment Utica Memorial Route 5S The proposed recreation trail will enhance and Park Auditorium (Oriskany pedestrian and bicycle access to the None Facilities Blvd.) auditorium.

Addison Miller District Park York St. None None

Murnane Field Burrstone Rd. None None

4-9

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

4-10

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion

Demographics and Affected Population The project area, along with the City of Utica and Oneida County, has experienced a declining population for decades. Between 1990 and 2000, the population declined approximately 19% in the project area. In that same time period, the diversity of the population increased from 8.7% identified racially as non-white to 24.3%. The community has also experienced an economic decline signified by a lack of development growth and investment. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of available housing units declined 7.5% and the vacancy rate increased from 8.5% to 24.7%. The decline in homeownership in West Utica continues to the present day further weakening neighborhood stability. The median home value in 2000 was $31,550 compared to $61,500 for the City of Utica and $76,500 for Oneida County. In 2000, median household income in the project area was $14,573/year compared to $24,916/year for the City of Utica and $35,909/year for Oneida County. Other social and demographic characteristics from census data and the community survey are summarized in Exhibits 4.2.2 and 4.2.2a.

It is expected that most residents in the project area will not experience significant environmental and social impacts as a result of the proposed project. Consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898, and FHWA Guidance on Environmental Justice, the project will not directly or indirectly use criteria, methods or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or income level. The project satisfies the following three principles of Environmental Justice:

1) The project avoids, minimizes, or mitigates disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations. This conclusion has been reached based on the following determinations: a. No significant environmental impacts (i.e., air, noise, water quality, etc.) have been identified. See Section 4.4. b. No impacts to public facilities and community services have been identified. See Exhibit 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.4. c. No significant impacts on community cohesion have been identified. See Section 4.2.2. d. The project is anticipated to have positive economic impacts in the project area. See Section 4.3 e. Mitigation measures, such as the pedestrian bridge, recreation trail, Fay St. frontage road, architectural and streetscape/landscaping amenities, and relocation benefits are included in the project to address environmental effects on all people including, minority and low-income populations.

2) The full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process has been ensured. Census data from the five census tracts encompassing the project area were analyzed to identify Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations. The analysis indicated that, for all language groups, there were no LEP populations exceeding 1000 or 5% of the total population. Therefore, no actions to address or resolve LEP issues and concerns are required. However, the project's Public Involvement Plan (Appendix G with the LEP analysis) includes continual efforts to identify stakeholders in the community with special needs, or who may be subject to the provisions of Environmental Justice. Traditional communication and outreach methods will be modified or other special techniques will be used as necessary to reduce barriers to participation and maximize involvement. Public outreach efforts will be continuously monitored throughout the life of the project to ensure that the planned measures result in the desired participation and that the issues and concerns of all stakeholders are being evaluated equally.

3) The project will prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations. As discussed in the “Home and Business

4-11

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Relocations” section below, assurances have been made that those who are eligible for relocation benefits will receive them..

Exhibit 4.2.2 Social and Demographic Characteristics (2000 Census Data) Location General Project Area Core Project Impact Characteristic (Census Tracts 201, Oneida Area (Census Tracts City of Utica 203, 209, 211.01, and County 209 and 211.01) 211.02) Area Population 3,405 8,752 60,679 235,469 Median Age 33 36 37 38 Race - % Non- 24.3% 27.3% 20.6% 9.8% White % Hispanic 8.5% 7.1% 5.8% 3.2% % Age 65 or Older 12.1% 15.5% 19.0% 16.5% % Under Age 18 23.9% 21.7% 24.2% 23.9% Average Household 2.28 2.10 Persons 1.96 Persons 2.43 Persons Size Persons % Owner Occupied 28.4% 25.6% 48.9% 67.2% Housing % Renter Occupied 71.7% 74.4% 51.1% 32.8% Housing Housing Vacancy 24.7% 21.2% 14% 12% Rate Median Home $31,550 $33,500 $61,500 $76,500 Value Median Household $14,573/year $16,846 $24,916/year $35,909/year Income % Families Below 36.4% 32.1% 19.8% 9.8% Poverty Level

Respondent Median Age 69 65 Respondent Identified as 7.5% 8.8% Non-White Other Household Member(s) 29.6% 18.5% Identified as Non-White Respondent Identified as 0% 0% Hispanic Other Household Member(s) 5.0% 6.0% Identified as Hispanic

4-12

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 4.2.2a Social and Demographic Characteristics (2009 Community Survey Results) Location Characteristic Core Project Impact Area General Project Area (Census Tracts 209 and (Census Tracts 201, 203, 211.01) 209, 211.01, and 211.02) Household Members Age 65 28.8% 25.1% or Older Household Members Under 20.0% 22.1% Age 18 Average Household Size 1.9 Persons 2.8 Persons % Owner Occupied Housing 76.2% 76.8% % Renter Occupied Housing 23.8% 23.2% Median Household Income $24,801 - $28,400 $28,401 - $32,000 (2008 Dollars) % Families Below Poverty 26.7% 17.8% Level

Community Cohesion A summary of community survey responses to questions concerning social conditions in the project area follows: 2/3 of respondents have lived in their current house for more than 10 years, 1/3 reported less than 10 years The median age of respondents was 65 years (this is significantly higher than the 2000 census median age of 36) 63% of respondents living west of the arterial think the quality of life in their neighborhood is getting worse 67% of respondents living east of the arterial think the quality of life in their neighborhood is staying the same 77% of respondents are homeowners and 23% are renters (these percentages are the reverse of 2000 census data) Majority of respondents (60.6%) do not have adult relatives in the neighborhood, 47.9% have no closest friends in the neighborhood, 36.6% have 1-3 closest friends Majority of respondents (57.7%) knew only 0-5 adult neighbors on a first name basis Majority of respondents (54.9%) never or almost never gather with neighbors for informal social activities, 47.9% never or almost never gather with neighbors on the opposite side of the arterial for informal social activities 45.1% of respondents are unlikely to move in 2-3 years (16.7% probably, 28.2% definite), 23.9% are uncertain, 18.4% are likely to move in 2-3 years (8.5% probably, 9.9% definite) 58.6% of respondents would be somewhat or very sorry if they had to move away, 24.2% would be very pleased, 12.9% would not care either way

The high percentage of respondents owning their homes and living in them for more than 10 years could indicate that the general project area is a mature and well established community. However, these results do not correlate with the census data showing that there is a high percentage of renters in the community. The decline in homeownership in West Utica continues to the present day further weakening neighborhood stability. Also, other survey results show that the existing level of social cohesion may not be high. While most survey respondents are long term homeowners who would be sorry if they had to move away, they do not appear to be highly interactive with others in their neighborhood. The majority of respondents indicated that they have no adult relatives and few friends in their neighborhood. Also, the majority of respondents know only a few of their neighbors on a first name basis and never or almost never gather with neighbors for informal social activities.

4-13

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Survey respondents had mixed opinions with no clear majorities for or against the proposed project. In the context of impacts to the overall community, measurably more respondents (39.7% vs. 27.9%) felt that the build alternative will have positive impacts rather than negative impacts. However, when asked to consider impacts to their neighborhood and family, only slightly higher percentages of respondents indicated that the build alternative will have positive impacts rather than negative impacts. More respondents (8.5% - 8.7%) indicated that the no-build alternative would have negative rather than positive impacts on the overall community and their immediate neighborhood. More respondents (4.2%) indicated that the no-build alternative would have positive rather than negative impacts on their family. 37.3% to 57.2% of respondents combined could not identify positive or negative impacts for either build or no-build conditions or had no opinion.

A summary of community survey responses to questions concerning opinions about the impacts of the Build and No-Build Alternatives follows:

Overall Community Impact Opinion Build Alternatives No-Build Alternative Very to Moderate Positive Impact 39.7% 18.5% Very to Moderate Negative Impact 27.9% 27.2% Neither Positive or Negative Impact 13.2% 25.7% No Opinion 19.1% 28.6%

Neighborhood (Within 2 Blocks) Impact Opinion Build Alternatives No-Build Alternative Very to Moderate Positive Impact 27.5% 17.2% Very to Moderate Negative Impact 26.1% 25.7% Neither Positive or Negative Impact 26.1% 28.6% No Opinion 17.4% 28.6%

Family Impact Opinion Build Alternatives No-Build Alternative Very to Moderate Positive Impact 31.9% 25.7% Very to Moderate Negative Impact 28.9% 21.5% Neither Positive or Negative Impact 17.4% 25.7% No Opinion 21.7% 27.1

Respondents were also asked the following two questions about the build and no-build alternatives:

In your own words, please tell us what you would consider to be the most important positive as well as negative consequences of the viaduct replacement option for your community, your neighborhood, and your family.

In your own words, please tell us what you would consider to be the most important positive as well as negative consequences of this no-build option for your community, your neighborhood, and your family.

Responses to these questions are provided in Appendix D.

Since the proposed improvements are within an existing transportation corridor, the project will not divide neighborhoods, isolate part of a neighborhood or otherwise affect community cohesion. Minor impacts associated with the closures of the Sunset Avenue and Warren Street intersections with the North South Arterial are possible as local traffic seeking to travel east and west will need to use other crossings. Depending on the route chosen, the added travel time is estimated to be 1 to 2 minutes with additional travel distances ranging from 0.33 to 0.87 miles (See Appendix C for analysis). It is expected that most of the relatively low volumes of traffic crossing the North South Arterial on Sunset Avenue and Warren Street will be diverted to Court Street and Noyes Street. The proposed interchange at Court Street can accommodate this crossing traffic in a safer manner with minimal increase in travel times. No adverse impact on operations and safety is anticipated at the Noyes Street intersection with the arterial. The proposed Fay Street frontage road will preserve and enhance the connectivity

4-14

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

of the city street network improving access and mobility for vehicles on the west side of the arterial. Pedestrian safety will be significantly improved with the proposed pedestrian bridge and Court Street interchange as conflicts with traffic on the North South Arterial will be eliminated. The proposed recreation trail will provide improved pedestrian and bicycle mobility and connectivity in the community. Future plans for connection of the trail south to the Rayhill Trail and north to the Erie Canal Trail will provide opportunities for improved regional bicycle and pedestrian mobility and connectivity. These proposed improvements and future plans will foster a healthier, safer, and more sustainable environment for residents and system users.

Home and Business Relocations Exhibit 4.2.2b provides a summary of the numbers and types of impacted properties in the project area. Appendix H contains a table with individual property information, plans showing impacted property locations and the Conceptual Stage Relocation plan.

Exhibit 4.2.2b Property Impacts Summary Acquisition Type Partial Property Whole Property Acquisitions Total Acquisitions Number of Alternative Properties RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL Vacant or Impacted Number of Properties Number of No Minor Strip (Number of Household) Commercial Relocation Acquisitions Relocations Relocations Involved Roundabout at 108 33 (57) 8 36 31 Court Street Diamond at Court 104 30 (51) 8 36 30 Street SPUI at Court 104 30 (51) 8 36 30 Street

Of the occupied dwellings to be acquired under the SPUI option, 17 are owner-occupied units and 34 are tenant occupied units. These households do not contain a disproportionate number of minority or low income populations. The proposed property acquisitions will have mixed effects on the community. The removal of abandoned residential homes and vacant lots will improve the character of the community by eliminating structures and unimproved properties that give the impression of a deteriorating neighborhood. This improvement is offset by the removal of viable residential structures. However, these structures are a small percentage (2%) of the developed properties in the general project area. Many property owners have expressed a desire to sell their properties. Overall, the effects of this project will not cause adverse impacts upon neighborhood character and stability.

Of the commercial properties to be acquired and relocated, 3 are auto body repair shops, 2 are warehouses, 1 is a used car dealer, 1 is a cedar furniture business and 1 is a Nice-n-Easy Gas Station/Convenience Store. All are small businesses and are not major employers in the project area. The relocation of these businesses out of what is a predominately residential neighborhood may be a positive impact on the community. The removal of the Fay Street Warehouse, which is an imposing 10 story monolithic concrete building, will provide a significant visual improvement to the area. The proposed widening on Court Street will impact the gas pump islands at the Nice-n- Easy and a complete relocation is assumed. However, there may be an opportunity for the business to redevelop on the existing site to avoid relocating. This option will be explored in more detail with the interested parties during final design and the real estate acquisition phase.

As detailed in the Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan (Appendix H), there are sufficient available residential and

4 – 15 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

commercial offerings on the market to accomplish successful relocation of the residential and commercial displacees for each alternative. Because of the large number of apartments required, it will be essential that time is factored in so that the rental market can recover. It is also anticipated that Last Resort Housing may be necessary in both owner and tenant occupancies. There are no highway construction projects or other projects by any public or private agency scheduled which would affect the availability of replacement property. It is estimated that the relocations on this project can be accomplished within one year from the date of vesting.

In effecting the relocation activities on this project, the following assurances are made:

1) As part of the preparation procedure for the acquisition stage relocation plan, each site occupant will be personally interviewed to determine their specific relocation needs.

2) The acquisition and relocation assistance programs will be conducted in accordance with the requirements and standards of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended or as may be amended, as authorized by Section 30 of New York's Highway Law and implementing Rules and Regulations (Part 101).

3) All site occupants will be furnished a copy of the State's informational booklet and will be fully informed of all benefits to which they may be entitled.

4) No site occupant will be required to move from their property without at least 90 days written notice.

5) Comparable replacement housing will be available and offered to all residential occupants.

6) The relocation program will be carried out in an orderly, humane and timely fashion.

7) Relocation assistance will be offered to all relocatees without discrimination.

8) An on site relocation office will not be established on this project. Staff from the Regional NYSDOT Office will provide relocation assistance at hours convenient to the displacees.

4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed

Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups As shown in Section 4.2.2, a review of US Census data indicates that there is no significant concentration of elderly or disabled persons in the project area. The age of the affected population is of a similar composition as the rest of the City of Utica. The existing highway is deficient in infrastructure accommodations for handicapped and elderly due to long distances crossing a high volume roadway. The proposed pedestrian bridge, recreation trail and Court Street interchange, along with new sidewalks and crosswalks throughout the project area, will improve accessibility accommodations for these user groups. All pedestrian accommodations will meet ADA requirements.

Transit Dependent Groups, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists See Sections 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2 for a description of existing pedestrian and bicycle facility conditions and needs. Pedestrian safety will be significantly improved with the proposed pedestrian bridge and Court Street interchange as conflicts with traffic on the North South Arterial will be eliminated. The proposed recreation trail will provide improved pedestrian and bicycle mobility and connectivity in the community. Future plans for connection of the trail south to the Rayhill Trail and north to the Erie Canal Trail will provide opportunities for improved regional bicycle and pedestrian mobility and connectivity.

The project will have no adverse impact on existing area public bus service (see Section 2.3.2.3).

4 – 16 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice) As discussed in Section 4.2.2, while the project area has higher percentages of minority, ethnic and low income populations than the City of Utica (Exhibit 4.2.2), the composition is similar. It is expected that most residents in the project area will not experience significant environmental and social impacts as a result of the proposed project. Disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations as a whole are not anticipated. Consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898, and FHWA Guidance on Environmental Justice, the project will not directly or indirectly use criteria, methods or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or income level. The project satisfies the principles of Environmental Justice. See Section 4.2.2 for more discussion. .Mitigation measures, such as the pedestrian bridge, recreation trail, Fay St. frontage road, architectural and streetscape/landscaping amenities, and relocation benefits have been included in the project to address environmental effects on all people including, minority and low-income populations.

4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship

School Districts The proposed project corridor is within the Utica City School District. Exhibit 4.2.1 lists all of the schools in the project area. Utica City Schools are served by a private bus company. Sidewalks exist in the project corridor and are used by students from the adjacent neighborhoods. However, nearly 73% of respondents to the community survey indicated that children living in their household do not walk or bicycle across or beneath the North South Arterial when going to or from school.

No long term adverse impacts to schools in the project area are expected. During construction there may be delays for some motorists traveling through the corridor, and temporary on-site detour sidewalks will be used during construction. This would be a temporary and relatively minor impact. In the long-term, effects will be positive with improved road conditions, traffic flow, new sidewalks and improved pedestrian crossings of the arterial at Court Street and with the pedestrian bridge.

Recreational Areas Exhibit 4.2.1 lists all of the recreational areas in the project area. No adverse impacts to these facilities are expected. The proposed recreation trail will provide added recreational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists in the community. Future plans for connection of the trail south to the Rayhill Trail and north to the Erie Canal Trail will provide opportunities for improved regional bicycle and pedestrian mobility and connectivity and access to recreational areas outside of the project limits.

Places of Worship Exhibit 4.2.1 lists all of the places of worship in the project area. No adverse impacts to these facilities are expected. Minor right of way acquisition is necessary from Holy Trinity Church for construction of the pedestrian bridge and sidewalk connection to Lincoln Avenue. Construction of a cul-de-sac will maintain functionality of the private roadway (Wheeler Ave.) on the west of the facility. There are no impacts to the Church’s plans for a new parking lot on the south side of the facility near the proposed eastern end of the pedestrian bridge.

4.3 Economic

4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies The community in the project area, along with the City of Utica as a whole, has experienced an economic decline signified by a lack of development growth and investment. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of available housing units declined 7.5% and the vacancy rate increased from 8.5% to 24.7%. The median home value in 2000 was $31,550 compared to $61,500 for the City of Utica and $76,500 for Oneida County. In 2000, median household income in the project area was $14,573/year compared to $24,916/year for the City of Utica and

4 – 17 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

$35,909/year for Oneida County.

See Section 4.2.1 for a description of recent and future private development plans that could benefit from the project.

Long-term direct and indirect impacts to the Regional and Local economies are anticipated to be positive. This determination is based upon improvements to local vehicular and pedestrian movements, and enhanced mobility of people and goods in the arterial corridor. The proposed Court Street interchange will significantly improve access and mobility on the west side of the city. The proposed improvements to access, mobility and modal choice associated with the Court Street interchange, pedestrian bridge, Lincoln Avenue connection to Burrstone Road, Varick Street ramp, recreation trail, and Fay Street Frontage Road will also create a setting for redevelopment and investment activity and rising property values in West Utica and the downtown area. The removal of vacant, abandoned and blighted properties will also be a positive change for remaining adjacent properties and will address the history of negative public opinion of the project corridor’s aesthetic and visual qualities.

A moderate short term economic boost could be realized during construction by the employment of people in construction related or other jobs. The estimated number of jobs created or saved is used as a benchmark to gauge probable effects resulting from spending on transportation projects. The number of direct, indirect and induced jobs created or saved can vary greatly by the type of project, work type and geographic location. As an average statewide estimate, NYSDOT has chosen 24 jobs per $1 million dollars of construction value to calculate the estimated number of direct, indirect and induced jobs created or saved. This estimate was based upon a review of several references where estimates range from 11 direct to 38 direct/indirect jobs per $1 million of construction spending. NYSDOT chose to use a more conservative number within this range. (Source: https://www.nysdot.gov/recovery/jobs) Based on the estimated construction cost of the preferred feasible alternative ($62.02M), this project has the potential to create or save approximately 1480 jobs.

Impacts to the real property tax base resulting from the proposed right of way acquisitions (see Section 4.2.2) will be minor. Exhibit 4.3.1 summarizes the anticipated loss of tax revenue from the proposed whole property acquisitions. Tax revenue loss from partial property acquisitions (minor strip acquisitions) were considered negligible and have not been included. The data shown in Exhibit 4.3.1 was obtained from the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (Office of Real Property Tax Services) and from the City of Utica.

Exhibit 4.3.1 Anticipated Real Property Tax Loss Compared to Total Tax Levies Taxing Jurisdiction Levy Year Total Tax Levy Anticipated Tax Loss Percent of Levy Loss City of Utica 2010 $20,305,307 $32,298 0.16% Utica City School District 2009 $27,650,712 $35,138 0.13% Oneida County 2010 $68,919,307 $13,302 0.019% Total $116,875,326 $80,738 0.07%

4.3.2 Business Districts

Established Business Districts Discussion with local officials has indicated that no established business districts exist in the project area. However, as discussed in Section 4.3.1, long-term impacts to existing businesses in the project area and in downtown Utica are anticipated to be positive. Also, the addition of ADA compliant sidewalks and visible crosswalks will improve access to businesses. The introduction of architectural and streetscape/landscaping amenities and lighting will enhance the appearance of the area for workers, shoppers, tourists, and local users.

4 – 18 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts

Established Businesses and Effects Assessment

Utica Cutlery (820 Noyes Street) and Dinghy Bar (728 Plant Street) Utica Cutlery is a private company involved with the manufacturing and sale of flatware and cutlery products. Utica Cutlery believes eliminating the access from Sunset Avenue to the northbound lanes of the Arterial would have an adverse impact on their company. Between receiving and delivery operations, Utica Cutlery processes approximately 24-30 trucks per day. Currently, these trucks back into the loading docks on the north side of their building from either Sunset Avenue or Lincoln Avenue. As trucks depart the facility, they turn left onto Sunset Avenue and/or Lincoln Avenue, then right onto the Arterial northbound from Sunset Avenue. Almost all of their trucks are either coming from or going to the New York State Thruway (Interstate Route 90). Utica Cutlery says their trucks are not able to negotiate the right turns required to use Noyes Street to access the Arterial northbound. They also believe any options that require traveling north on Lincoln Avenue to State Street and the arterial northbound would be a major inconvenience and a detriment to their trucking operations. Possibilities for providing better access to Lincoln Avenue from the truck bay on the north side of building were discussed along with the possibility and benefits of connecting Lincoln Avenue directly to Burrstone Road and reconfiguring the Arterial’s northbound exit and entrance ramps at this location. Utica Cutlery acknowledged this configuration would work, but only if access to Lincoln Avenue from the loading dock on the north side of their building was improved.

On October 31, 2008, a plan was presented to Utica Cutlery that addressed their concerns. This plan involved construction of a “turnaround” that used the existing Sunset Avenue roadbed to a point north of the loading dock driveway. From that point, the new road was aligned back to Lincoln Avenue on Holy Trinity Church property between the Lincoln Academy building and the houses to the south.

In late 2009, Holy Trinity Church indicated that they wanted to construct a parking lot on their property; the same location where the “turnaround” to tie back into Lincoln Avenue was proposed. The Church asked that other solutions be developed which allowed truck access for Utica Cutlery while allowing them to construct the parking lot.

Two options were developed. Both involve a right-angle turn off of Lincoln Avenue between the north side of the Dinghy Bar and a private residence. This driveway ties into a lot running parallel with the Arterial beginning at the north end of Utica Cutlery.

The two options differed in that the longer lot either: a) ended approximately 300 feet north of Utica Cutlery with no connection to Wheeler Avenue, or b) provided a connection to Wheeler Avenue, thereby allowing access to Holy Trinity Church from this direction. Both allow trucks to access the dock and exit back onto Lincoln Avenue. The parallel lot is also of sufficient width to allow either delivery truck or employee parking. The preference of both Utica Cutlery and Holy Trinity Church is for the plan with no connection to Wheeler Avenue.

There will be a minor impact to the rear portion of the parking lot at the Dinghy Bar. The impacted parking spaces can be reestablished on-site and by removing parking restrictions on the remaining portion of Sunset Avenue.

Indium Corporation (1676 Lincoln Avenue) Indium Corporation is a manufacturer of advanced materials for the solar, thin film, semiconductor, and electronics industries. Approximately 150 employees work at the Lincoln Avenue plant which is one of three facilities located in Oneida County. This facility is located at the southern terminus (dead end) of Lincoln Avenue.

4 – 19 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Indium had several concerns about impacts on the plant from the proposed extension of Lincoln Avenue to a new intersection with Burrstone Road.

1) Loss of parking - Approximately 35 parking spaces on the street and along the face of the building will need to be accommodated elsewhere when the connection is complete. A replacement parking area south of the plant between the connection and the Arterial is proposed. This area is over Nail Creek and a permanent easement will need to be retained over the culvert. The area could be utilized by Indium through a Use and Occupancy permit or the property could be surplused to them.

2) Drainage and rainwater impacts - Currently, they maintain several wet/dry vacuums to control flooding behind the doorways when it rains. They receive significant surface runoff down Newell Street which impacts their building. In an effort to minimize their flooding, they've sloped much of the area, between the road and their plant, away from the building. They asked that the proposed plans avoid adding additional runoff. Finished floor elevations of the doorways were obtained and the proposed plans will avoid adding additional runoff.

3) Snowplowing and snow storage - Currently, the west side of the building and the roof receive snow and salt spray from plowing operations on the Arterial. They are not in favor of the east side being similarly "pelted". Likewise, the presence of a sidewalk in front of their building would limit the space available for snow storage. The proposed plans maximize the offset of Lincoln Avenue from the plant without impacting the houses across the street. Additional snow storage area will be available by not providing a sidewalk in front of their building. A sidewalk will be available on the east side of Lincoln Avenue.

4) Increased traffic - With the exception of light traffic visiting the plant or coming down Newell Street, there is no existing through traffic in front of their building. Once the connection is made, the two-way peak hour volume on Lincoln Avenue is forecasted to be 595 vehicles/hour at the estimated time of completion (ETC). Also, some of this traffic may be heavy vehicles destined for/coming from other businesses on Lincoln Avenue. It is not expected that this low volume of traffic will adversely impact business operations in any significant manner.

5) Loading/unloading impacts to through traffic - Delivery trucks frequently stick out into traffic from the building or take up an entire lane when parked along the curb. There are currently no means for large tractor-trailers to back off the road into the plant. These deliveries take place with trucks parked in the southbound travel lane. With the current lack of traffic, this is not an issue but, when Lincoln Avenue is a through street, traffic could be impacted. To address this issue a loading/unloading "apron" will be constructed between the southbound lane and the building.

6) Impacts during construction – The plant operations are continuous with 3 shifts/day, typically 6 days/week. Disruptions to plant operations are unacceptable because of just in time product delivery requirements. While a final construction phasing plan has not been developed, it appears that work can be phased to minimize the impacts during construction. The possible phasing discussed is: a. Construct the spur on the south side of Burrstone Road along with left turn bays. b. Install signal and signing. c. Allow use of the new spur for northbound traffic. d. Use existing ramps (to be abandoned) as haul and access roads for the contractor to build most of the new connection on the north side of Burrstone Road and to build the parking lot. e. Complete connection while not allowing through traffic until complete.

7) Air Quality - Their manufacturing process requires near “clean room” conditions and is dependent upon a supply of clean air. Dust control will be an important part of construction but, there are also concerns about the post-construction supply of air. The presence of the Arterial requires them to take air from the Lincoln Avenue side of the building. Coordination on this issue is on-going.

4 – 20 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

8) Utility impacts - Of the four (4) poles in front of the building, 2 provide power to the plant. The other 2 are support poles for lines down Newell Street. Necessary relocations will be accomplished with no disruption of service.

Brodock Press (502 Court Street), Mohawk Valley Knitting Machinery Co. (702 State Street), and Empire Bath & Kitchen (600 State Street) Brodock Press is a commercial printing company and major employer in the City of Utica. Vehicular and pedestrian access to existing parking and trucking operations have been problematic due to the current traffic patterns on Court Street, Lincoln Avenue and the North South Arterial. The proposed Court Street interchange and widening of Court Street will impact an employee parking lot located on the southwest corner of the Court Street and Lincoln Avenue intersection. Replacement parking will be constructed on the west side of their building adjacent to the main parking lot.

Mohawk Valley Knitting Machinery Co. is located on the north side of Brodock Press. The close proximity of the existing North-South Arterial viaduct limits access to the rear of this business. Existing limited access is available under the bridge.

Empire Bath & Kitchen, located on the north side of Mohawk Valley Knitting Machinery Co., is a kitchen and bath remodeling center that also has space available in the building for garage storage and work space rental.

The proposed project will provide improved access on the west side of all three of these businesses between Court Street and Columbia Street. Public parking will also be constructed in the area that will become available by realigning the arterial to the west of its existing location.

Compassion Coalition (509 Lafayette Street) Compassion Coalition is a community based organization that acts as a collection and distribution point for food and related products. The organization distributes directly to food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, halfway houses, community associations, and inner city churches that are located primarily in Utica, Rome, and the Mohawk Valley, as well as throughout New York State. They operate a 36,000 square foot warehouse and grocery store.

The realignment of the North South Arterial to the west will provide opportunities for trucking operation and parking improvements.

Nice-n-Easy (505 Court St.) The proposed widening on Court Street will impact the gas pump islands at the Nice-n-Easy and a complete relocation is assumed. However, there may be an opportunity for the business to redevelop on the existing site to avoid relocating. This option will be explored in more detail with the interested parties during final design and the real estate acquisition phase.

Carl’s Furniture City (801 Wager St.) Correspondence has been received from Carl’s Furniture City expressing concern that the proposed closure of the Sunset Avenue intersection with the arterial may adversely impact the business.

The project will require closing the signalized intersections on the arterial at Sunset Avenue and Warren Street because of conflicts with new exit and entrance ramps for the proposed interchange at Court Street. Other alternatives to closing these intersections were explored, but none were determined to be feasible because of high costs and significant adverse community impacts. Specifically, new bridges to carry both streets over the arterial were considered. Bridges at these locations would require the acquisition of numerous properties, including Carl’s Furniture City.

4 – 21 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Significant public safety benefits will be realized by removing the intersections, especially Sunset Avenue. Between 2004 and 2007, this intersection had the highest number of total accidents (42) of the five signalized intersections between Oswego Street and Court Street. Rear-end accidents occurred most frequently at Sunset Avenue due to improper turning movements and the starting and stopping of traffic during daily peak travel periods.

In an effort to improve access and mobility for residents and businesses in West Utica, the project will include a parallel one-way (southbound) frontage road along the west side of the arterial from Wager Street to Court Street. This frontage road will terminate at the entrance to Carl’s Furniture City. It will preserve and enhance the connectivity of the city street network, and will be accessible from all directions at the proposed Court Street interchange. The frontage road will provide safer access than the existing intersections because conflicts with large volumes of higher speed traffic on the arterial will be eliminated.

4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL

4.4.1 Wetlands

State Freshwater Wetlands (SEQR) There are no NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated adjacent areas (100ft) within the project area, as per the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Maps for Oneida County1. A site visit was performed to verify this. No further investigation is required and Environmental Conservation Law, Article 25 is satisfied.

State Tidal Wetlands A review of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) GIS wetland data files indicates that there are no NYSDEC jurisdictional tidal wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within or near the project limits, and ECL Article 25 does not apply.

Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands The project site has been reviewed for wetlands in accordance with the criteria defined in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. It has been determined the project will not impact areas that meet this criteria.

Executive Order 11990 Based on a site visit, there are no wetlands located within the project’s area of potential effect. Executive Order 11990 does not apply to this project.

Mitigation Summary No wetland mitigation/monitoring plan is required for this project, since no wetlands are impacted.

4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses

Surface Waters Project activities do not involve excavation in, the discharge of dredged, or fill material into Waters of the U.S. No permits under this section are anticipated.

Surface Water Classification and Standards Based upon a review of the NYSDEC GIS data maps for regulated streams, the only surface water body within the project limits is Nail Creek at the Burrstone Road interchange. Nail Creek has a Class C

1 USGS Quadrangles: Utica East, Utica West

4 – 22 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

designation. NYSDEC classifies “C” waters as those with fishing as its best use. These waters are generally suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival. The water quality is generally suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes. There will be no impacts to this resource.

Stream Bed and Bank Protection Based upon a review of the NYSDEC GIS database, and as verified by a site visit, there are no protected streams, nor 50-foot regulated stream banks (on either side of a regulated stream) in the project area.

Airport and Airway Improvement The proposed project does not involve any airports.

Mitigation Summary No surface water mitigation/monitoring is required for this project since no surface waters are to be impacted.

4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

State Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers There are no NYSDEC Designated, Study or Inventory State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers within or adjacent to the proposed project site. No further review is required.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers The project does not involve a National Wild and Scenic River as shown by the Nationwide Rivers Inventory List of National Wild and Scenic Rivers. No further review is required.

Section 4(f) Involvement The proposed project does not involve work in or adjacent to a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further consideration is required.

Mitigation Summary No wild, scenic or recreational river mitigation/monitoring is required for this project since no rivers are to be impacted.

4.4.4 Navigable Waters

State Regulated Waters There are no state regulated navigable waters located within the project’s area of potential effect that will be impacted by the work.

Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters There are no OGS underwater holdings located within the project’s area of potential effect that will be impacted by the work.

Safe Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9 Since the project does not involve the construction or modification of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over any navigable water of the United States, Section 9 is not applicable.

4 – 23 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Safe Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10 Since the project does not involve the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States, or in any manner alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of any navigable water of the United States, Section 10 is not applicable.

4.4.5 Floodplains

Based on a review of the GIS data base, FEMA 100-year floodplains associated with Nail Creek are within the Burrstone Road interchange. Impacts to the flood plain will be minimized to the extent possible. Potentially, removal of embankment material from the removal of ramps to and from Burrstone Rd. connecting to the Arterial will be a benefit to the Nail Creek floodplain.

Executive Order 11988 In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, as implemented in the Federal Aid Policy Guide 23 CFR 650 subpart A, this action has considered and evaluated the practicability of the alternatives to verify that a significant encroachment does not exist, that there is no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility needed for emergency vehicles, that there is no floodway impact, that there will be no significant impacts on the natural and beneficial flood plain values, and that no flood plain level rise will be caused that would violate FEMA regulations. The project will have no significant effects on the 100 year floodplain.

4.4.6 Coastal Resources

Coastal Zone Management Program The proposed project is not located in a State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) area, according to the Coastal Zone Area Map from the NYS Department of State’s Coastal Zone Management Unit.

State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area The proposed project is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.

Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program According to NYS DOS “List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs),” dated March 2007, the proposed project is not located in a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area. No further action is required.

Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) The proposed project is not located in, or near a coastal area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) or the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA).

4.4.7 Aquifers, Wells, and Reservoirs

Groundwater Classifications, Standards and Regulations The groundwater in the project area is Class GA. Class GA waters are fresh groundwaters, best used as sources of potable water supply. The project is not over a Primary Aquifer, a Principal Aquifer Area, or adjacent to drinking water supply sources. Stormwater runoff in the project area will be treated for water quality in accordance with the NYSDEC general permit 0-10-001 for construction activities as proposed in the project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. There will be no significant effects to the groundwater in the project area.

4 – 24 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Aquifer Areas Review of GIS data shows the project area occurs within an unconfined mid-yield aquifer (10-100 gallons per minute (gpm)). As the aquifer is not “high-yield” (>100 gpm), it does not meet the criteria of a Principle or Primary Aquifer.

Public Wells, Private Wells and Reservoirs There are no public water supply wells within the project area.

New York City Watershed The proposed project area does not lie within a reservoir supply area for New York City.

4.4.8 Stormwater Management

As the project will disturb more than one acre of soil, coverage under NYSDEC SPDES General Permit GP-0-10-001 will be required. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will need to be developed by NYSDOT for review and approval by NYSDEC. The project corridor is not adjacent to or discharging runoff to, a TMDL Watershed or a listed 303(d) waterbody segment.

4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources

Fish, Wildlife, and Waterfowl The project lies within an urbanized area. There are no wetlands, waterbodies, parks or protected open space currently within the area of proposed disturbance. Nail Creek flows through a closed system for much of its length through the City of Utica, however one segment in the project area flows aboveground in the vicinity of the Burrstone Road interchange. Field screenings were conducted September 16, 2009, June 10, 2010, and July 12, 2010. Wildlife species observed during these visits were consistent with those normally found in an urban environment (i.e. American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos, American Robin Turdus migratorius, Feral Pigeon Columba livia, Feral Cat Felis catus).

Habitat Areas, Wildlife Refuges, and Wildfowl Refuges The proposed project does not involve work in, or adjacent to, a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further consideration is required.

Endangered and Threatened Species The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NYS Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), and NYSDOT entered into an agreement in 2006 whereby NYSDOT staff would be authorized to properly screen for threatened and endangered species after receiving sanctioned training. It is not necessary to contact either USFWS or NYNHP for potential presence or for field surveys. Screening for species and habitat presence is performed using GIS data from the NYS Natural Heritage Program Database, which contains records for both State and Federally-listed species. The mutually-agreed upon procedure is for NYSDOT staff to first use this database and the USFWS county-list website to determine the potential presence of threatened or endangered species. If a threatened or endangered species is indicated to be potentially present in or near a project location, the next step is to evaluate whether the species or suitable habitat for it is present within the project limits. If suitable habitat is determined to be present or the species presence is confirmed via site surveys, coordination with the Agencies is the appropriate course.

A threatened and endangered species GIS screening was conducted for the project corridor on September 10, 2009. A field screening was conducted September 16, 2009, June 10, 2010, and July 12, 2010. A finding of No effect on any state or federally listed species was proposed to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FHWA concurred that the project will have no effect on any federally- listed

4 – 25 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

threatened or endangered species in their correspondence to the region dated March 31, 2011. See Appendix B1.

New York State Listed Species Based on New York State Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) data, there are no listed communities on or adjacent to the site. There is one known location of a listed species within 1.5 miles of the site. There is potential for two listed species to occur within the area of proposed disturbance.

Known . Pied-billed Grebe Pied-billed Grebes inhabit quiet marshes, marshy shorelines of ponds, shallow lakes, or marshy bays and slow moving streams with sedgy banks or adjacent marshes. They are rarely found in brackish marshes with limited tidal fluctuation. Although plant species in breeding marshes may vary, a 50/50 combination ("hemi-marsh") of emergent vegetation interspersed with open water is desirable (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Grebes avoid dense emergent vegetation, and muskrats appear to play an important role in opening up dense cattail stands and providing cut stalks for nest construction. Ideal water depths for nesting range from 25 to 50 cm (Seyler 2003). Grebes set up breeding territories more commonly in wetlands impounded by beavers or humans than in those of glacial origin, and individual pairs appear to favor wetlands of intermediate size (1.5 Ac – 17.3 Ac) over very large or small wetlands (Gibbs and Melvin 1992). As there is a known location for this species less than 0.5 miles north of the potential area of disturbance, NYSDOT staff coordinated with Steve Heerkens, Wildlife Biologist 1, based in the NYSDEC Region 6 Sub-Office in Utica, New York. He stated that the proposed work is well away from any wetland habitat that may harbor Pied-billed Grebes. No individuals or suitable habitat were observed during the field screening. No adverse impact is anticipated.

Potential . Live-Forever Live forever grows best in open woods and along roadsides. It is robust and can even thrive in disturbed areas. According to the NYNHP database, potential for this species exists along the entire project corridor; however there is no date for the last known sighting and its location is listed only as “City of Utica”. No individuals were observed during the field screening. Although disturbed areas were found throughout the project corridor, the majority of these areas are disturbed on a regular basis from mowing regimes, or are part of landscape plantings. No adverse impact is anticipated.

. Marsh Valerian Marsh Valerian has been found in a variety of wetland types in New York State, though not usually in marshes. According to the New York Natural Heritage Program, most appropriate sites share certain characteristics, including alkaline or calcareous groundwater, an open aspect (or small openings within forests), and peaty, saturated soils. Calcareous swamps and wet woods, chiefly with Larix and Thuja; bogs, swamps, and meadows; and marshy meadows, swamps and bogs are preferred.

According to the NYNHP database, the last recorded sighting of this species was in 1937 in the City of Utica and Town of New Hartford. Specifically, the database indicates it was “in the limestone cliffs above Utica, found only in two localities”.

No individuals or suitable habitat were observed during the field screening. No adverse impact is anticipated.

4 – 26 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Federally Listed Species Bog turtle is only listed for the Towns of Florence and Camden in Oneida County, both of which are outside the project area. No further coordination with USFWS is needed. Based on a GIS survey of the project area, two areas of proposed disturbance are within 40 miles of the closest known Indiana Bat hibernaculum. As such, field visits were conducted in the summer of 2009 and 2010 to determine if suitable Indiana Bat habitat is present in these areas. The first area of interest is a 0.33± acre area bordered by Stark Street to the northwest, Wager Street to the southwest, and McVean St. to the northeast. During the field visit, no trees that were dead or dying, or had cracked or peeling bark were identified at this location. The second area of interest is along Lincoln Avenue from its northeastern intersection at Court Street, to its southwestern terminus. Several trees were either dead or dying and had the requisite cracked or peeling bark. Coordination with the USFWS is needed if these trees are planned for removal.

On March 31, 2011 FHWA concurred with NYSDOT’s recommendation that this project will have no effect on the bog turtle and Indiana bat. If at any time during construction the presence of these species or their habitat is discovered or suspected, construction activities must be halted. Activities cannot resume until FHWA and USFWS are consulted. FHWA’s concurrence letter is provided in Appendix B1.

Invasive Species A review of the existing corridor indicates that a dense stand of Japanese Knotweed within the right-of- way, bordered by Lincoln Avenue, Warren Street, the North–South Arterial, and Court Street. Removal or other treatments will be considered for the knotweed. Precautions will be taken to prevent the introduction of additional invasive plants, intentionally or accidentally, during project design and construction.

Roadside Vegetation Management Existing roadside vegetation consists primarily of maintained lawn areas. Efforts will be made to replace wildlife-supporting vegetation that is removed in the course of construction.

4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas

State Critical Environmental Areas According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project does not involve work in or near a Critical Environmental Area.

State Forest Preserve Lands According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project does not involve work in or near state forest preserve lands.

4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources

State Heritage Area Program The proposed project will not impact areas identified as State Heritage Areas.

State Historic Preservation Act – Section 14.09 Because the project is a federally funded action, involves a federal permit, or is state funded with the possibility of becoming federally funded, the Department will be following the Section 106 Process of the National Historic Preservation Act. This ensures compliance with the NYSHPA Section 14.09 process.

4 – 27 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 There were many surveys and addendums completed to identify the cultural resources within the area of potential effect for this project. Surveys were completed by the New York State Museum (NYSM) in April 2007 (Volumes 1 & 2) and June 2009 (Lincoln Ave. addendum). Additional surveys were done by Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. (HAA) in December 2008 (Volumes 1-3), July 2009 (Burrstone Road Interchange), and January 2010 (Phase 2 Site Examinations).

There were five properties identified as NRE in the April 2007 Cultural Resource Survey done by the NYSM: 519 & 521 Columbia Street, 1206 Lincoln Ave. – The Holy Trinity Church Complex, 602 Roberts Street Tenements, and 820-824 Noyes Street - The Utica Cutlery Company. There were fifty-two additional properties identified in the Cultural Resource Survey Report done by HAA in December 2008, of which twenty of the properties have been confirmed as NRE by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. The great majority of houses in the project area are vernacular dwellings for which decorative elements are only secondarily “character defining features.” House form and plan are the most important character defining features for this group of houses. Thus, the structures that have been identified as NRE are those which retain, or appear to retain, the greatest integrity to their original form and plan. An addendum survey was done in June 2009 by NYSM for the section of Lincoln Avenue from Noyes Street to Burrstone Road. This survey identified four additional structures as NRE: 1507, 1671 & 1677 Lincoln Avenue, and 831 Oswego Street. The survey done by HAA in July 2009 for the Burrstone Road Interchange also identified properties 1671 & 1677 Lincoln Avenue as NRE. On October 13, 2010, SHPO determined on a site visit to the project that three properties were not eligible for the National Register. These properties are 519 Columbia Street, 710 Fay Street and 602 Roberts Street. As a result of this revised findings, of the twenty-five NRE properties identified within the project corridor, only one will be adversely impacted by the proposed alternatives of the project: 521 Columbia Street. Level III HABS documentation has been requested for this property as mitigation for impacts. A copy of the eligibility finding can be found in Appendix B2.

There were thirteen sites that were recommended for Phase II investigations due to the cultural material found during the second reconnaissance survey done by HAA in December 2008. Systematic subsurface excavations combined with deed research and landowner interviews documenting the use of the sites and their modification through the 19th and 20th century would allow archaeologists to evaluate changes in the formation of the property over time. Units have been excavated to determine the potential these sites have to be National Register Eligible. This report was completed in January 2010 by HAA. Eleven sites contribute to the identified West Utica Archaeological District and nine sites are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

The June 2009 cultural resource survey completed by NYSM identified one site near the project area that would need additional archaeological investigation if design plans change. The Chenango Canal Locks 5 & 6 Site (NYSM #12227) is currently outside of the project area and will not require any additional work.

The proposed project will have an Adverse Effect on historic resources. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.6, FHWA invited the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to participate in consultation in the Section 106 Process. ACHP responded on April 19, 2011 and indicated that their participation was not necessary. ACHP’s letter is included in Appendix B2.

Architectural Resources The proposed project involves work on federally owned, jurisdictional or controlled properties that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The property at 521 Columbia Street (Antoine Steber House) is a two-story brick Italianate style structure built before 1870. This property is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as a good architectural example and is also eligible under Criterion A because it reflects the continued settlement and growth in the City of Utica. The

4 – 28 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

proposed project will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as 36 CFR Part 800 - Protection of Historic Properties.

Mitigation for the impacts to this structure will be documented using the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation Level III. Drawings, photographs of interior and exterior with the written architectural data form will be included. Coordination for the additional mitigation has been initiated to move the structure to the adjacent historic district. A partnership between the city of Utica and other interested parties will have to be developed to share costs for the relocation. Attempts will be made to advertise this property for sale once it has been acquired by the NYSDOT.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was executed with the FHWA, SHPO and NYSDOT as signatories for the unavoidable adverse effect to the historic property at 521 Columbia Street and was submitted to ACHP for filing. The MOA is included in Appendix B2.

Archaeological Resources A Phase 1 archeological survey was conducted by the NYSM in 2007 for a portion of the corridor that was considered the area of potential effect. The results of this survey are included in the April 2007 report. No further work was recommended for the testable areas along the corridor, however, construction monitoring was recommended for those MDS locations that were unable to be tested due to the presence of asphalt or concrete pavement of the existing arterial, other local roads, parking lots, driveways and sidewalks. Therefore, the results of the potential for NRE sites are unknown. A construction monitoring and data recovery plan has been developed for these locations during construction activities. These sites include MDS’s 4-15, 18-20, 24, 27-29, 35, and 37- 42 identified in the April 2007 report completed by NYSM, Volume 1. The addendum Phase 1 archeological survey done by Hartgen in December 2008 identified one additional property that will require construction monitoring due to the presence of concrete or asphalt. This location is a parking lot at the intersection of Court Street and Lincoln Avenue, NYSM 12190. This site was identified with only one shovel test pit and once hosted a number of industrial warehouses and shops. As a result of the Phase II site examination completed in June of 2010, a construction monitoring plan will also be developed for those sites that were not testable during the Phase II site examination and include monitoring locations 1-5, 8, 705 Roberts Street. Construction monitoring at these locations is one of the stipulations within the Memorandum of Agreement between the FHWA, SHPO and NYSDOT.

The second Phase I archeological survey conducted by Hartgen Archeological Associates to determine the presence of archeological resources done in 2008 indicated that resources were found in the project vicinity within the area of potential effect. A copy of this conclusion from the Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey done in December 2008 is included in Appendix B2.

There were fourteen properties identified in the cultural resource reconnaissance survey in the December 2008 report as requiring a Phase II. This survey has been initiated to more precisely determine the locations, quantity and significance of the resources. This report will make it possible to fully identify and evaluate potential impacts from the project, and to determine if a Data Recovery effort will be necessary, and to determine what mitigation measures will be appropriate.

The Phase II survey done by Hartgen Archeology completed in January 2010 identified the West Utica Archeological District which is comprised of both contiguous archeological sites and non-contiguous sites within a distinct neighborhood of the City of Utica. The district includes 11 archeological sites that are part of the same working class, residential section of the city that are contributing to the NRE district. Of these eleven sites, nine are considered individually eligible for the National Register.

4 – 29 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

A Data Recovery Plan has been requested for five of the nine sites within the APE. Details of the mitigation measures for each site will be included in the plan. Data Recovery will be done at 700 Bristol St., 705-707 Bristol St., 705 Roberts St., 706 Roberts St., and 1019 Sunset Avenue after the properties have been acquired by the NYSDOT. The vertical area of potential effect defined by the scope of work at these locations has been evaluated and the recommendation for the data recovery efforts has been determined. It is anticipated that these sites do not warrant protection in place. Impacts proposed at these sites resulted in an Adverse Effect determination and are included in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with mitigation efforts established. The Adverse Effect determination was made on February 4, 2011, and the MOA was signed by representatives from NYSDOT, the SHPO, and FHWA and was executed. The Section 106 process has been completed and the requirements of 36 CFR Part 800 have been met.

Historic Bridges There are no bridges over 50 years old or listed on NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory that are located within the project’s area of potential effect.

Historic Parkways This project does not have the potential to impact any Historic Parkways.

Native American Involvement The Department will be following the Section 106 Process of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). This ensures compliance with this Act. In addition, places or artifacts of religious importance to Native Americans were not found within the project impact area. An initial coordination letter to the Oneida Indian Nation was sent April 3, 2007. A response from Jesse Bergevin (OIN) indicated that there is “nothing culturally significant to the Oneida Indian Nation” within the proposed project area (see Appendix B2). As project limits changed, additional consultation letters were sent on August 24, 2009, May 14, 2010 and November 2, 2010 to the OIN with the cultural resource survey reports. There has been no response from the Nation as a result of the findings in these reports.

Section 4(f) Involvement The reconstruction of the viaduct of the North-South Arterial will be shifted to the west of the existing alignment to correct the existing sub-standard curve and sight distance problem traveling southbound approaching the Court Street intersection. This alignment shift will result in the acquisition of many properties along the corridor. There is one historic property that will be impacted that is listed on, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The property at 521 Columbia Street, has been identified as National Registered Eligible in the April 2007 cultural resource survey report done by the New York State Museum and was confirmed by the State Historic Preservation Office after a field visit on October 12, 2010.

The property at 521 Columbia Street was built before 1870 and is identified as the Antoine Steber House in the April 2007 report done by the NYSM. The structure is a two-story brick building eligible under Criterion C as a good example of an Italianate style house in the City of Utica. It is also eligible under Criterion A as it reflects continued settlement and growth in the City of Utica. An Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation will be progressed for this building and is discussed further in Chapter 5 of this document.

There were eleven NRE archeological sites that have been identified in the Phase II Site Examination completed in January 2010. All eleven of these sites contribute to the West Utica Archaeological District. Of these eleven sites, nine sites are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and located within the project area of potential effect. These nine sites are determined individually NRE based on the presence of a sub-surface stratified feature, such as a cistern, privy, or trash pit; the presence of stratified sheet midden deposits; or by some other contextual feature that make the sites

4 – 30 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

unique in the project area and valuable to the broader understanding of the history and cultural development of the neighborhood. Five of the nine sites will be impacted by the proposed project and will require Data Recovery. These archeological sites do not warrant preservation in place, therefore, there is no Section 4(f) involvement.”

4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources

State Heritage Area Program The proposed project will not impact areas identified as National Heritage Areas.

National Registry of Natural Landmarks There are no listed nationally significant natural areas within, or adjacent to, the project area. Based on a review of the current National Registry of Natural Landmarks listing for New York State there are no listed sites in or adjacent to the project which might be impacted by the project. Moss Island in Herkimer Co. is the only National Register of Natural Landmarks listed site in Region 2.

Section 4(f) Involvement There are no publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, protected under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act, in or adjacent to the project area. No further action is required under this section.

Section 6(f) Involvement The project does not impact parklands or facilities that have been partially or fully federally funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act. No further consideration under Section 6(f) is required.

Section 1010 Involvement This project does not involve the use of land from a park to which Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program funds have been applied.

4.4.13 Visual Resources

Introduction The proposed project is a highway reconstruction on new and existing alignment with the introduction of a multi-use recreational trail on the alignment of an existing railroad bed to the west. The viaduct at the north end of the project limits will also be replaced on a shifted alignment to the west. The corridor is a four-lane divided highway that is the boundary between west and central Utica located within the city limits. There will be traffic mitigation areas that include constructing a new intersection at Lincoln Avenue and Burrstone Road and Champlin Avenue and Route 5A. There will be three primary viewer groups of the proposed project: highway traffic users, residential occupants, bicyclists and pedestrians.

Effects Assessment The North-South Arterial corridor runs along the former alignment of the Chenango Canal and has a collection of 18th, 19th and 20th century buildings along its length. There are commercial factories, mills and warehouses along the corridor that are oriented toward the arterial as they would have been during the operational days of the canal. The residential homes are oriented along the side streets spurring off the corridor with some facing the arterial. Since the highway lacks any significant topographical change, and are bordered on both sides by structures, the lateral viewshed of highway users and pedestrians are narrow, and limited to the highway corridor. The northern portion of the project area is elevated over Route 5S, however, approaching Route 5S from the south or Court Street from the north, the viewshed is inhibited by two large buildings on either side. The Fay Street Warehouse to the west will be removed as a result of the viaduct replacement to allow for adequate sight distance approaching the future Court Street and Oriskany Boulevard interchanges from both the north and south.

4 – 31 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

The project is expected to have significant, positive effects to the existing visual corridor. New elements and fixtures introduced to the streetscape will be selected to reflect and enhance the context and architecture of the existing structures as well as introduce elements from the past including manufactured limestone block to mimic the locks of the historic Chenango Canal, varied pavement applications, sculptures done by local artists, appurtenances such as ornamental street lighting, bollards, bike racks, benches, and decorative fencing along the multi-use recreational trail. The viewshed to the west will also be enhanced with the increased visibility of the Historic Brewery District from the southbound and northbound lanes as a result of the removal of the warehouse.

Mitigation Summary Since the highway corridor closely follows the path of the old Chenango Canal, design of many of the new highway elements will incorporate canal themed highlights. Visualizations of the new pedestrian bridge and centerline concrete barrier show canal oriented features along with new pavement and crosswalks, textured surfaces, new turf areas, fresh plantings, decorative pavers, vinyl fencing, and other aesthetic features will together greatly improve the overall appearance of the highway corridor and surrounding areas.

In some locations, utility poles will be relocated either underground or consolidated to remove the overhead clutter from the viewshed.

4.4.14 Farmlands

State Farmland and Agricultural Districts Based on a review of the NYS Agricultural District Maps for Oneida County, the proposed project is not located in or adjacent to an Agricultural District.

Federal Prime and Unique Farmland The proposed project activities will not convert any prime or unique farmland, or farmland of state or local importance, as defined by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, to a nonagricultural use.

4.4.15 Air Quality

Introduction The air quality analyses for the proposed project were performed in accordance with methodologies presented in Chapters 1.1 and 1.2 of NYSDOT’s Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM), Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) “Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents,” NYSDOT’s “Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis,” and NYSDOT’s “Draft Greenhouse Gases Emissions Estimate Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis.”

Potential air quality impacts for this project have been analyzed and the effects of the project alternatives on energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been evaluated. The detailed methodologies and procedures utilized in these analyses, as well as the quantitative results of the analyses, are described in the Air Quality Technical Report for the project. The complete Air Quality Technical Report is available for review upon request. Technical backup documentation is provided in Appendix B3.

Pollutants and Ambient Air Quality Standards Various air pollutants have been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as being of concern nationwide. National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are concentrations set for each of

4 – 32 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

the criteria pollutants to protect human health and welfare. For the most part, New York has adopted the NAAQS as state ambient air quality standards.

The criteria pollutants of concern for this project are carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Potential CO, PM10 and PM2.5 impacts of the proposed project were considered on localized levels; CO, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 precursors (nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons) were considered on a regional level.

Regulatory Setting The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) defines non-attainment areas as geographic regions that do not meet one or more of the NAAQS. The CAA requires that a State Implementation Plan (SIP) be prepared for each non-attainment area, and a maintenance plan be prepared for each former non-attainment area that subsequently demonstrated compliance with the standards.

The SIP defines strategies that the state will follow to meet the NAAQS under the deadlines established by the CAA. EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule requires SIP conformity determinations from proposed projects before they are approved or adopted. Conformity is defined as compliance with the SIP’s strategies to eliminate or reduce the severity and number of NAAQS violations and achieve expeditious attainment of such standards. In addition, Federal activities may not cause or contribute to new violations of air quality standards, exacerbate existing violations, or interfere with timely attainment or required interim emissions reductions towards attainment.

The project study area is in the city of Utica, Oneida County, New York, which is in NYSDOT’s Region 2. The area is designated as being in attainment for all applicable pollutants. As such, no SIPs are required for the project area and no project level conformity determination is required.

Analyses Conducted and Alternatives Considered To meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) requirements, the analyses conducted for this project included a localized (microscale) CO screening analysis, a microscale PM dispersion modeling analysis, a regional (mesoscale) emission analysis to estimate the regional effects of the project, a qualitative mobile source air toxics (MSATs) analysis, an energy and GHG analysis, and a review of the project’s status with regards to transportation conformity with the SIP for air quality. These analyses were conducted for the following conditions:

The microscale analyses were conducted for No Build and Build conditions (i.e., with and without the proposed project). Worst case conditions at each of the selected analysis sites were estimated. The regional air quality, GHG, and energy analyses were conducted for three build alternatives, each of which includes one of three design options at Court Street -- a 3\4 Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI), a 3\4 Diamond Interchange, and a 3\4 Roundabout. As these design options would have somewhat different effects on local traffic patterns and travel speeds, different estimated impacts on regional emission rates are anticipated.

Microscale Mobile Source Analysis Microscale air quality analyses were conducted in accordance with Chapters 1.1 and 1.2 of the EPM. Following these procedures, a CO screening level analysis and a PM Level I microscale analysis using CAL3QHC (EPA’s guidance model for estimating CO, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations near roadways) were conducted. Project-specific hourly traffic volume data (for cars and trucks) for the freeways, local roadways, and associated connecting ramps for the No Build and Build Alternatives were used.

4 – 33 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

CO Screening Level Analysis NYSDOT guidance lists specific criteria for determining the need to perform a microscale CO analysis for a given project. Based on this guidance and available traffic data, analysis sites were screened using NYSDOT’s volume threshold criterion, which is based on whether the projected volumes on the roadways affected by the project exceed the volume thresholds specified in the EPM. The analysis sites considered for this project are provided in Exhibit 4.4.15.

Exhibit 4.4.15: Potential CO Analysis Sites Considered for Analysis Route 5A/Oriskany St & Schyler St State St & Columbia St Route 5A/Oriskany St & Broadway State St & Lafayette St Route 5A Oriskany St & Washington St Oswego St & Lenox Ave Route 5A/Oriskany St & Seneca St Oswego St & N/S Arterial (5, 8 & 12) Route 5A Oriskany St & Genesee St Oswego St & Lincoln Ave Route 5A & Ramp to Varick St Noyes St & Lenox Ave Route 5 A & Rt 5, 8 & 12 North/ South Noyes St & Schyler St State St & Ramp from/to Rt 12 and Ramp Noyes St & Stark St from 5A to 5S Court St & Varick St Noyes St & N/S Arterial (5, 8 & 12) Court St & Sunset Ave Noyes St & Lincoln Ave Court St & Rte 5, 8 & 12 NB Exit Ramp Lincoln Ave & Sunset Ave Court St & Rte 5, 8 & 12 SB Exit/Entry Ramp Warren St & Sunset Ave Court St & Broderick Press/Lincoln Ave Burrstone Rd & Lincoln Ave Connection Court St & State St Burrstone Rd & Bennet St Court St & Cornelia St Champlin Ave & Whitesboro St Court St & Broadway Champlin Ave & Route 5A Court St & Genesee St Whitesboro St & Route 5A

CO air quality screening analyses were performed for the project’s estimated time of completion (ETC, which is 2015), ETC+10 (2025) and ETC+20 (2035). The result of the analysis is that all the potential analysis sites passed the EPM screening threshold criteria and, therefore, none of the project-affected intersections require a detailed CO microscale air quality analysis, and no significant CO microscale impacts are anticipated.

PM10 and PM2.5 Impact Analysis Although the project is not expected to add new vehicle trips, action-related diversions would result in increased traffic volumes on certain roadways. Thus, in accordance with Chapter 1.2 of the EPM, PM microscale analyses were conducted to assess the impacts of vehicular PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in the project area at selected receptor locations in the vicinity of the project under the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative. Impacts were evaluated by comparing the differences between predicted concentrations for the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative to potential significance impact thresholds provided in the NYSDOT guidance at the following four analysis sites:

Site 1: Court Street & State Street Site 2: Court Street & Main Line Route 5,8,12; Site 3: Burrstone Rd & Lincoln Avenue; and Site 4: Champlin Avenue & Rte 5A/Whitesboro Street

These sites were determined to have the greatest potential for significant impacts based on traffic volumes and the locations of nearby sensitive land uses.

4 – 34 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Analyses were conducted using the modeling approach specified in Chapter 1.2 of the EPM. Pollutant levels were estimated using CAL3QHC, an EPA-approved mathematical dispersion model. PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors were obtained from NYSDOT tables for Oneida County.

The results of these analyses are that the differences between the No Build Alternative and maximum Build impact are less than the NYSDOT potential significance impact thresholds for both PM10 (see Exhibit 4.4.15a) and PM2.5 (see Exhibit 4.4.15b). As such, the potential impacts of the proposed project are not considered to be significant at any of the selected analysis sites.

3 Exhibit 4.4.15a: 24-hr PM10 Impact Analysis Results (μg/m )

2035 Build Site No. Intersection No Build Build Increments 1 Court Street & State Street 1.2 1.5 0.3 2 Court Street & Route 5, 8, 12 Main Line 2.4 2.1 -0.3 3 Burrstone & Lincoln Street 2.0 2.1 0.1 4 Champlin Ave & Route 5A/Whitesboro Street 1.5 2.7 1.2 Note: A persistence factor of 0.4 was used to convert estimated 1-hour PM10 concentrations to 24-hour concentrations.

3 Exhibit 4.4.15b: 24-hr and Annual PM2.5 Impact Analysis Results (μg/m )

2015 Site Build Increments Intersection No Build Build No. 24-hr Annua 24-hr Annua 24-hr Annual 1 Court Street & State Street 0.6 0.1l 0.7 0.2l 0.1 <0.1 2 Court Street & Route 5, 8, 12 Main 1.2 0.2 1.0 0.2 -0.2 <-0.1 3 Burrstone & Lincoln Street 0.9 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 <0.1 Champlin Ave & Route 4 1.3 0.3 1.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 5A/Whitesboro Street

Note: Persistence factors of 0.4 and 0.08 were used to convert 1-hour PM2.5 concentration to 24-hour and annual PM2.5

concentrations, respectively. Mesoscale Mobile Source Analysis Although the proposed project is in an area that is in attainment for all applicable pollutants and therefore exempt from certain technical analyses, NEPA and SEQR require that projects that may significantly impact air quality and energy consumption be evaluated to determine the extent of these impacts. Furthermore, the project involves significant modifications to the Court Street interchange. As a result, the project meets the NYSDOT’s criteria for projects requiring a mesoscale air quality analysis (i.e., a project affecting a study area larger than the immediate project area but smaller than the entire system network), and a regional analysis was therefore conducted.

The mesoscale analysis, which provides a comparison of the overall project-level emissions from roadways associated with each alternative, included a comparison of the projected hourly emissions of CO, PM2.5, PM10, NOx, and VOCs associated with the No Build and Build Alternatives. Daily emissions were estimated for the project’s estimated time of completion (ETC), 10 years after ETC (ETC+10), and

4 – 35 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

20 years after ETC (ETC+20) for the No Build and Build Alternatives. Total daily emissions for each roadway link were calculated by multiplying emission factors, daily traffic volumes, and lengths of each link, and then summing up the results for all links.

The result of the regional analysis (see Exhibit 4.4.15c) is that peak hour and daily emissions of all applicable pollutants (CO, PM2.5, PM10, NOx, and VOCs) would decrease as a result of the project (under all three project alternatives and all three analysis years). The percent decreases in daily emission rates under each alternative for each analysis year vary from -0.5% to -2.5%.

Exhibit 4.4.15c: Percent Change in Total Daily Pollutant Emissions % Change from 2015 No Build % Change from 2025 No Build % Change from 2035 No Build SPUI Diamond Roundabout SPUI Diamond Roundabout SPUI Diamond Roundabout VOCs -1.8 -1.8 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 CO -2.1 -2.0 -2.0 -2.2 -2.1 -2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -2.1 NOx -1.9 -1.9 -1.8 -2.4 -2.3 -2.2 -1.5 -1.5 -0.9

PM10 -2.0 -2.0 -1.9 -2.1 -2.0 -1.9 -0.6 -0.5 -0.8 PM2.5 -2.0 -2.0 -1.9 -2.1 -2.0 -1.9 -0.6 -0.5 -0.8

Energy Analysis NYSDOT environmental analysis guidelines for transportation projects also outline procedures for the analysis of the potential energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with a project. The results of these analyses are used in a manner similar to the mesoscale emission analysis, i.e., to provide a comparison of the overall project-level energy consumption and GHG emissions from roadways associated with each alternative. The guidance for energy and GHG analyses requires that projects with anticipated construction costs exceeding $50,000,000 prepare these analyses as part of the environmental study. The anticipated construction costs of the proposed project exceed this threshold; therefore, energy and GHG emissions analyses were conducted for the project. The analyses provide a comparison of the estimated annual energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with the No Build and Build Alternatives. These comparisons are used to evaluate whether the project alternatives meet the goals of the State Energy Plan.

The energy analysis estimates the direct and indirect energy impacts associated with the proposed project. It was performed in accordance with NYSDOT’s “Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project- Level Analysis” (NYSDOT 2003) using EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) - Roadway and Rail Energy and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Extension (RREGGAE). MOVES-RREGGAE is an interface designed for NYSDOT that provides a platform for estimating energy and GHG emissions associated with transportation projects and plans in New York State. The program provides an extension to EPA’s MOVES emission factor algorithm, and is capable of calculating energy and GHG emissions from roadway operations, construction and maintenance.

The Build Alternatives are all predicted to reduce total energy consumption when compared to the No Build Alternative -- even when factoring in the additional energy required for the construction of the Build Alternatives (see Exhibit 4.4.15d). Depending upon the analysis year, the reduction in energy of the Build Alternatives, when compared to the No Build Alternative, ranges from 1.7% to 1.8% (2015), 1.6 to 1.7 % (2025) and 0.2% to 0.4% (2035). These differences in total energy consumption can be attributed primarily to changes in direct energy estimates that are anticipated as a result of the roadway configurations.

4 – 36 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 4.4.15d: Energy Requirements (million BTU) Direct Indirect Percent Combined Change Scenario Year Roadway Direct Roadway Roadway Indirect Total from No Operation Total Construction Maintenance Total Build

2015 3.0918E+006 3.0918E+006 3.0937E+006 -- No Build 2025 3.3659E+006 3.3659E+006 -- 1.8826E+003 1.8826E+003 3.3678E+006 -- 2035 3.5663E+006 3.5663E+006 3.5682E+006 -- 2015 3.0274E+006 3.0274E+006 3.0377E+006 -1.81% Build SPUI 2025 3.2989E+006 3.2989E+006 8.2128E+003 2.0779E+003 1.0291E+004 3.3092E+006 -1.74% 2035 3.5492E+006 3.5492E+006 3.5595E+006 -0.24%

2015 3.0281E+006 3.0281E+006 3.0384E+006 -1.79% Build 2025 3.2992E+006 3.2992E+006 8.2128E+003 2.0779E+003 1.0291E+004 3.3095E+006 Diamond -1.73% 2035 3.5507E+006 3.5507E+006 3.5610E+006 -0.20% 2015 3.0319E+006 3.0319E+006 3.0422E+006 -1.66% Build 2025 3.3027E+006 3.3027E+006 8.2128E+003 2.0779E+003 1.0291E+004 Roundabout 3.3130E+006 -1.63% 2035 3.5430E+006 3.5430E+006 3.5533E+006 -0.42% Notes: Construction results have been annualized based on 20-yr project duration. Values do not include well-to-pump.

The proposed project will meet many of the New York State Energy Plan’s goals by reducing congestion, enhancing regional mobility, and reducing travel time. On a regional level, changes in travel patterns throughout the project area are expected to lower overall travel times. Total energy consumption for all of the Build Alternatives is predicted to be lower than the No Build Alternative for all analysis years.

Greenhouse Gas Analysis Fossil fuel combustion is the most significant source of GHG emissions for the proposed project. The burning of fossil fuels produces emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which result from oxidation of the carbon in the fuel. The GHG emission analysis was performed in accordance with NYSDOT’s “Draft Greenhouse Gases (CO2) Emissions Estimate Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis” (NYSDOT 2003) using the MOVES-RREGGAE model. The GHG emission analysis included all roadways analyzed as part of the mesoscale air quality analyses.

GHG emissions are generated from direct and indirect energy consumption from vehicle and equipment operations associated with the highway, connecting roadways, and local streets affected by the project. For direct energy consumption, it was assumed that the energy consumed from vehicles is a result of the combustion of motor fuel. For indirect energy consumption, it was assumed that the energy consumed during construction and maintenance operations is a result of the combustion of diesel fuel.

In accordance with NYSDOT guidelines, estimates of GHG emissions are reported as tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The Build Alternatives are predicted to reduce GHG emissions when compared to the No Build Alternative -- even when factoring in the additional GHG emissions from the construction of the Build Alternatives (see Exhibit 4.4.15e). Depending upon the analysis year, the reductions in GHG emissions of the Build Alternatives, when compared to the No Build Alternative, range from 1.7% to 1.8% (2015), 1.6 to 1.8 % (2025) and 0.2% to 0.4% (2035).

4 – 37 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Exhibit 4.4.15e: CO2 Emissions (metric tons) Direct Indirect Percent Combined Change Scenario Year Roadway Direct Roadway Roadway Indirect Total from No Operation Total Construction Maintenance Total Build

2015 2.4380E+005 2.4380E+005 2.4394E+005 -- No Build 2025 2.6475E+005 2.6475E+005 -- 1.3780E+002 1.3780E+002 2.6489E+005 -- 2035 2.8037E+005 2.8037E+005 2.8051E+005 -- 2015 2.3873E+005 2.3873E+005 2.3949E+005 -1.82% Build SPUI 2025 2.5949E+005 2.5949E+005 6.0118E+002 1.5210E+002 7.5328E+002 2.6024E+005 -1.75% 2035 2.7903E+005 2.7903E+005 2.7978E+005 -0.26% 2015 2.3879E+005 2.3879E+005 2.3954E+005 -1.80% Build 2025 2.5951E+005 2.5951E+005 6.0118E+002 1.5210E+002 7.5328E+002 2.6027E+005 -1.75% Diamond 2035 2.7914E+005 2.7914E+005 2.7990E+005 -0.22% 2015 2.3909E+005 2.3909E+005 2.3984E+005 -1.68%

Build 2025 2.5979E+005 2.5979E+005 6.0118E+002 1.5210E+002 7.5328E+002 2.6054E+005 -1.64% Roundabout 2035 2.7854E+005 2.7854E+005 2.7930E+005 -0.43% Notes: Construction and maintenance include CO2 only. Construction results have been annualized based on 20-yr project duration. Values do not include well-to-pump.

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) In addition to the criteria pollutants for which there are NAAQS, the EPA also regulates air toxics. Toxic air pollutants are those pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners), and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).

Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html). In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/). These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules.

The 2007 EPA rule requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (vehicle-miles traveled, VMT) increases by 145 percent as assumed, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050.

4 – 38 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

On February 3, 2006, the FHWA released “Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents.” This guidance was superseded on September 30, 2009 by FHWA’s “Interim Guidance Update on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents.” The purpose of FHWA’s guidance is to advise on when and how to analyze MSATs in the NEPA process for highways. This guidance is interim, because MSAT science is still evolving. As the science progresses, FHWA will update the guidance. A qualitative analysis provides a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment, which is included in the Air Quality Technical Appendix, is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled “A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives,” found at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm. FHWA’s Interim Guidance groups projects into the following tier categories:

1. No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT Effects; 2. Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or 3. Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT effects.

Based on the recommended tiering approach, it has been determined that this project falls within the Tier 2 approach. As stated in FHWA’s guidance, Tier 2 includes projects that “serve to improve operations of highway, transit or freight without adding substantial new capacity or without creating a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase MSAT emissions. This category covers a broad range of projects.” Based on this guidance, the project was analyzed using the Tier 2 approach.

For each project alternative, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is less than that for the No Build Alternative -- leading to an overall decrease in MSAT emissions. This overall emissions decrease may be offset somewhat by higher MSAT emission rates due to an estimated decrease in average travel speeds as a result of the project.

The extent to which these speed-related emissions increases will offset VMT-related emissions decreases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models. Since the estimated VMT under each of the alternatives are nearly the same, varying by less than 5%, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by 72% between 1999 and 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases. The Air Quality Technical Report for this project provides further documentation regarding MSATs.

Construction-Phase PM Analysis PM emissions are classified as on-road (e.g., cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles) and non-road. Non- road emissions are generated from a diverse number of sources, including vehicles and equipment used in transportation construction projects (e.g., excavators, asphalt pavers, backhoes, bulldozers).

The criterion for determining potential impacts is based on a calculation of annual project-level non-road construction emissions. NYSDOT’s Final Policy (September 2004) for Particulate Matter Analysis states that construction-phase emissions that are less that 15 tons/year for PM10 or PM2.5 are below significant impact thresholds and no further assessment is required. The result of a construction phase emissions

4 – 39 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

analysis for this project, which is included in the Air Quality Technical Report, is that annual construction- related PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the impact threshold of 15 tons per year during the construction period. As such, the potential construction-phase impacts are not considered to be significant. In addition, it is anticipated that in the future analysis years, with the implementation of stricter non-road diesel engine emission standards and non-road diesel fuel sulfur limitations, project construction-related PM emissions would be reduced even more.

Conformity The project study area is designated as being in attainment for all air pollutants. As such, no conformity determination is required for the proposed project.

Conclusions The results of this analysis are the following: No significant CO impacts are anticipated. The estimated PM10 and PM2.5 impacts of the project are less than the NYSDOT potential significant impact thresholds. As such, no significant PM10 or PM2.5 impacts are anticipated. The mesoscale (regional) emission analysis determined that vehicular emissions of CO, PM10, PM2.5, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would decrease as a result of the project’s Build Alternatives. As such, no significant adverse regional impacts are anticipated. The MSAT analysis determined that there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various design alternatives, and the future levels would decrease under all project alternatives. As such, no significant adverse regional impacts are anticipated. The energy and GHG analyses determined that the Build Alternatives would reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions.

The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions generated by the construction of the project alternatives are estimated to be less than the NYSDOT impact threshold. As such, no significant adverse construction phase impacts are anticipated. The overall result of the air quality analysis is that the potential air quality impacts of the proposed project are not considered to be significant.

The complete Air Quality Technical Report can be viewed at the Department’s Regional Office located in Utica, New York.

4.4.16 Energy Energy and GHG analyses have been completed for the project and are included within section 4.4.15 of this report. The conclusion of the energy and GHG analyses determined that the Build Alternatives would reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions.

4.4.17 Noise The proposed build alternative for this project includes the construction of new ramps and the alteration of the vertical and horizontal alignments for the Route 5/8/12 North-South Arterial as well as the realignment of the Arterial northbound ramps at Burrstone Road with a direct connection to Lincoln Avenue at the traffic mitigation site south of the proposed project area. Roadway improvements of this nature are considered Type I projects as defined by 23 CFR 772 and therefore a noise study was conducted to determine the impacts of traffic generated noise and construction noise resulting from the proposed project.

The New York State Department of Transportation Term Agreement Consultant, Creighton Manning Engineering, conducted the Noise Study in the fall of 2009 and submitted the Final Noise Study Report to the Department in January 2010. The Noise Study surveyed the proposed project area and identified 49

4 – 40 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

sites for analysis within the project area. All 49 sites identified were analyzed for the design year build and no build alternatives utilizing the Federal Highways Administration’s (FHWA) approved Traffic Noise Model (TNM) computer model. The results of the computer model indicated that one site was projected to experience an increase of 7 decibels (dBA) as a result of the proposed project and seven sites were projected to approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) of 66 dBA.

Because sites were identified that were projected to experience a 7 dBA increase, or would meet or exceed the NAC, reasonable and feasible noise abatement measures were required to be considered for the proposed project. Noise abatement considerations include traffic management techniques, alternative highway locations, noise barriers, and acquisitions of real property to serve as buffer zones. The results of the Noise Study indicated that none of the techniques considered were found to be reasonable and/or feasible because they would not provide the noise reduction required or would not be considered cost effective for implementation. However, noise abatement measures including the use and inspection of proper equipment, coordination of work efforts, reduction of back up procedures with construction equipment, and public information programs were recommended to minimize construction noise for twelve identified sites located adjacent to proposed bridge foundations requiring pile driving operations. The complete Final Noise Study Report, dated January 2010, can be found in Appendix B4.

4.4.18 Asbestos The proposed project consists of the replacement of ramps, bridges and utilities as well as the acquisition and demolition of commercial and residential properties and structures. Therefore, asbestos assessments will need to be completed for the bridge, ramps, utilities, and all commercial and residential properties and/or structures acquired for demolition. All asbestos assessments will be conducted by the Departments Term Agreement Consultant. The asbestos assessments for the bridges and ramps have been completed. Impacted asbestos-containing sheet packing (bond breaker/filler) has been identified on BINs 1002281, 1002282, 100228A, and 100228B. ACM caulk has been identified and is partially remaining on guiderail post metal base plate edges of BIN 1002282. Assessments for utilities will take place within the near future. The asbestos assessments for the commercial and residential structures will take place once the Department acquires ownership of such properties. All appropriate items will be placed within the contract documents for the handling, removal, and disposal of any identified asbestos containing materials. The results and conclusions of the asbestos assessments are available for review upon request.

4.4.19 Contaminated and Hazardous Materials The proposed build alternative for this project includes the construction of new ramps and the alteration of the vertical and horizontal alignments for the Route 5/8/12 North-South Arterial (Arterial) as well as the realignment of the Arterial northbound ramps at Burrstone Road with a direct connection to Lincoln Avenue at the traffic mitigation site south of the proposed project area. Additionally, the proposed project also includes work at a traffic mitigation site located at the northern terminus of NYS Route 921W (Champlin Avenue). Champlin Avenue will be extended a short distance north across a former gas station property to intersect directly with Route 5A.

Because the proposed project will include arterial and road realignments potentially consisting of construction excavation activities, constructing structural supports and bridges, purchasing of properties, utility relocations, and drainage modifications, a hazardous and contaminated investigation, screening, and/or assessment was conducted for the project corridor. These investigations, screenings, and/or assessments consisted of three reports that that were completed by the Department’s Term Agreement Consultant, Shumaker Consulting Engineering and Land Surveying Inc, and/or their sub consultant Alpha Environmental Consultants Inc., and were submitted to the Department in June 2008 and April 2010. These reports consisted of a project corridor environmental review as well as concentrated reports for the Fay Street Warehouse and the Lincoln Avenue corridor. The reports are titled “Preliminary Hazardous

4 – 41 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

Materials Investigation - Phase I Corridor Environmental Review”, “Hazardous Materials Investigation – Phase I Environmental Assessment – 609 Fay Street – Fay Street Warehouse”, and “Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Screening Report – Lincoln Avenue Corridor”. These reports are available for review upon request and are not included in an appendix to this report because of their large size. The following is a brief summary of each individual report.

The “Preliminary Hazardous Materials Investigation - Phase 1 Corridor Environmental Review” was submitted to the Department in June of 2008 and consisted of the project corridor area along the Arterial in downtown Utica, approximately one mile long, from the CSXT railroad tracks (to the north) to approximately 100 feet south of the intersection of the Arterial and Sunset Avenue. The corridor area included the area within a radius of approximately 500 feet surrounding the defined segment of the arterial. The purpose of the corridor investigation was to identify potential areas of contamination or concern that may be encountered during construction or warrant further investigation prior to construction activities. The investigation consisted of obtaining and reviewing environmental records and historical maps, obtaining and reviewing aerial photographs, performing a site visit, and preparing a summary report of the investigation findings. The results of the report indicated that there are 40 sites of concern for encountering impacted soil and/or sediments within the project area. Of the 40 sites identified 28 sites are listed as primary sites of concern and 12 sites are listed as secondary sites of concern. Of the primary sites of concern, 6 are known to have current or past petroleum spills and 2 are known to have PCB impacted soil or sediment. The remaining 20 primary sites are known to have documented storage of hazardous materials but have no known confirmation of impacted soils or sediments. The remaining secondary sites are locations where it is presumed that recognized environmental conditions exist and that contamination will be encountered at one or more of these sites. Further review and investigation of one or more of the primary and/or secondary sites is recommended depending on locations of property acquisitions, the project alternative chosen, and/or construction activities proposed that may impact or be impacted by one or more of the identified primary and/or secondary sites of concern.

The “Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Screening Report – Lincoln Avenue Corridor” concentrated on the area defined as the north side of Lincoln Avenue, from Burrstone Road to Court Street in the City of Utica. The corridor is approximately 1.3 miles in length and includes the area between Lincoln Avenue and the Arterial. The purpose of the corridor screening was to evaluate and review environmental and historical records, perform site reconnaissance, and conduct interviews to identify potential sites that may have contaminated soils and/or groundwater associated with historical and/or current uses that may be encountered during construction of the proposed project. The results of the report indicated that there are 42 sites of concern for encountering impacted soil and/or sediments within the project area. Of the 42 sites identified 17 sites are listed as primary sites of concern and 25 sites are listed as secondary sites of concern. The primary sites are listed as sites of concern because they are locations of documented current or historical environmental impacts, current or historical storage of hazardous materials, or are considered to have a significant level of potential impacts. One or more of the primary sites may consist of locations of current and/or past petroleum spills, sites identified as containing PCB-impacted soil and/or sediment, and/or current and/or former sites of dry cleaning and/or manufacturing facilities. The remaining secondary sites are locations where it is presumed that recognized environmental conditions exist and that contamination may be encountered at one or more of these sites. Recommendations indicated that there are environmental concerns of encountering impacted soil and/or groundwater during construction at or in the vicinity of these identified sites that could require appropriate testing, handling, storing or managing, disposal, reuse, or recycling of such wastes. Additionally, the report indicated that there are concerns of dewatering and treating petroleum contaminated groundwater, if encountered, as well as short term potential air quality impacts to residents and workers from particulates, vapors, and/or contaminated dust. Recommendations also consisted of further review and investigation of one or more primary and/or secondary sites depending on the project alternative chosen and potential sites impacted by the project..

4 – 42 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

The “Hazardous Materials Investigation - Phase 1 Environmental Assessment – 609 Fay Street – Fay Street Warehouse” report concentrated on the area defined as a radius of approximately 200 to 300 feet surrounding 609 Fay Street. The purpose of the Phase I Environmental Assessment was to evaluate and review environmental and historical records, review air photographs, perform a site visit, and conduct interviews to identify potential sites that may have contaminated soils and/or groundwater associated with historical and/or current uses that may be encountered during construction of the proposed project. The results of the report indicated that there are 15 sites of concern for encountering impacted soil and/or sediments within the project area. Of the 15 sites identified 6 sites are listed as primary sites of concern and 9 sites are listed as secondary sites of concern. Of the primary sites of concern all 6 are sites known to contain, or historically contained hazardous materials, or which have or may have impacted soil and/or groundwater quality. The remaining 9 secondary sites are identified as sites that may represent environmental concerns, but for which either no direct evidence exists to judge the location as a primary concern, or where the location likely will not be disturbed by the proposed project. Recommendations indicated that there are environmental concerns of encountering impacted soil and/or groundwater during construction at or in the vicinity of these identified sites that could require appropriate testing, handling, storing or managing, disposal, reuse, or recycling of such wastes. Additionally, the report indicated that there are concerns for dewatering and treating petroleum contaminated groundwater if encountered as well as short term potential air quality impacts to residents and workers from particulates, vapors, and/or contaminated dust. Recommendations also consisted of further review and investigation of one or more of the primary and/or secondary sites depending on the project alternative chosen and potential sites impacted by the project. Additionally, the project proposes to acquire and demolish the Fay Street Warehouse located at 609 Fay Street and thus recommendations consisted of further evaluation of the building and sub-grade conditions.

In regards to the proposed work at the traffic mitigation site located at the northern terminus of NYS Route 921W (Champlin Avenue) where Champlin Avenue will be extended a short distance north across a former gas station property to intersect directly with Route 5A, further evaluation, analysis, investigation and/or coordination by the Department is recommended prior to any property acquisitions or construction activities at this location. The former gas station property is a site of a known petroleum spill and items such as underground petroleum storage tanks, pipes, and lines may currently exist on site that may be encountered during construction and/or will need to be addressed prior to property acquisition and/or construction activities.

Lead Paint: This project involves ramp and bridge work. The presence of lead paint on the structure is suspected. Therefore, contractors will be advised that there is the potential to encounter lead paint during construction for inclusion within the contractor’s health and safety plan.

4.5 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS

Maintenance and Protection of Traffic It is anticipated that the construction of this project will have temporary adverse impacts on local traffic. The following mitigation measures will be developed in the project design and planning process to minimize impacts on traffic during construction: • A detailed Work Zone Traffic Control Plan will be developed during the detail design phase of this project. The two traffic mitigation sites proposed (Lincoln Ave. extension to Burrstone Road and Champlin Ave. extension to Route 5A) will be key components of this plan. • Public awareness/information program to keep the nearby residents and highway users informed as to the planned activities and to explain how traffic and other operations would be maintained during construction periods.

4 – 43 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

• Emergency service providers will be provided with detailed information regarding construction schedules and activities.

Air, Noise, and Water Quality During Construction Temporary impacts on air quality, noise, and water quality may occur during the construction period. Air Quality impacts, primarily, will be due to increases in airborne particulates caused by excavating and earthmoving activities. Noise impacts, primarily, will be from the operation of construction equipment. Temporary impacts to water quality may potentially result from erosion and sedimentation associated with earthmoving operations.

Construction-related air quality and noise impacts will be mitigated to the extent practicable by incorporating appropriate specifications into the contract documents. These specifications may include the following: • Requirements to reduce airborne particulates by the application of water and dust palliatives. • Reducing heavy equipment noise sources through contract provisions requiring operative mufflers and proper equipment maintenance. • Limiting work hours of construction activities and scheduling particularly loud operations (pile driving) by the time of day, day of week, or season. Although this is a possible mitigation measure, its feasibility in relation to the construction schedule must be established. • Locating stationary equipment away from sensitive receptors. • Locating haul routes away from sensitive receptors where possible. • Coordinating truck traffic with local traffic. • Establishing a public information program regarding construction noise.

As noted in Section 4.4.8 a SPDES General Permit (GP-0-10-001) for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities will be required for this project. As part of this permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed. Independent of this permit requirement, NYSDOT implements erosion and sedimentation control plans for all projects. Elements of the SWPPP to mitigate impacts on water quality during the construction period may include the following: • Identifying in the contract plans the location of sensitive on-site and adjacent off-site natural and man- made resources that could be affected by the work. Sensitive features include, but are not limited to, surface water bodies, wetlands, special wildlife habitat areas, existing trees and other vegetation to remain, adjacent residential and commercial properties, and public recreation facilities. • Temporary and permanent structural and vegetative measures for soil stabilization, run-off control, and sediment control for each stage of the project from initial clearing and grubbing to project closeout. • Identify on the plan sheets and/or in appropriate tables, the specific locations, sizes, and lengths of each required sediment and erosion control practice. • Provide material, dimensional and installation details for all erosion and sediment control practices and facilities, including the location and sizing of temporary sediment basins. • Identify temporary practices that will be converted into permanent facilities. • Provide an implementation schedule for staging temporary erosion and sediment control practices, including the timing of initial placement and the duration that each practice should remain in place. • Provide a maintenance schedule to ensure continuous and effective operation of the erosion and sediment control practices.

4.6 INDIRECT (SECONDARY) IMPACTS

Indirect Socioeconomic Impacts No significant adverse indirect socioeconomic impacts have been identified for the proposed project. No foreseeable induced and substantial development, resulting in direct or indirect social, economic, and environmental impacts or adverse effects on the existing community or region, is expected from the no-build alternative or the feasible alternative. From a regional standpoint, the proposed operational and mobility

4 – 44 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

improvements are minor and are not significant enough to alter regional travel patterns in ways that would encourage or induce significant development outside of the project area. Reasonably foreseeable future actions or development resulting from this project is expected to be limited. Because there will continue to be limited access to the reconstructed facility, it is not likely that substantial new development will be induced by the project. The proposed interchange at Court Street and other proposed access improvements may encourage the improvement or redevelopment of adjacent properties. However, it is not anticipated that the future type of land use would change significantly from the existing mix of commercial, light industrial and residential use.

The anticipated positive indirect socioeconomic impacts have been discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this chapter.

4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This section identifies the social, economic, and environmental resources that would be impacted by the proposed project; and those resources that are important from a cumulative effects perspective. This Cumulative Effects Analysis (CEA) has been performed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which require that the cumulative effects of a project be examined along with the direct and indirect impacts of a project (CFR 1508.25(c)).

The CEQ defines cumulative effects as an “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7)”. As the term implies, cumulative effects are a summation of the impacts that can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taken or that are likely to take place over a period of time. Accordingly, there may be different cumulative impacts on different environmental resources. The goals of this CEA are to identify:

1. The geographic area of potential effects associated with the proposed project; 2. The impacts that are expected from the proposed project; Other actions – past, present, and proposed, and reasonably foreseeable – that have or are expected to have impacts in the same area; and 3. The overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate.

Geographic Scope of Analysis The geographic area covered by the analysis is described in Section 4.2 and shown in Figure 4.2.

Time Frame of Analysis The time horizon used for this analysis is 1800 to 2030. The beginning of the time horizon was set at 1800 to coincide with the timeframe considered in the analysis of impacts to Historic and Cultural resources. Given the absence of approved City of Utica land use or master plans within the study area, the end of the study time horizon was set at 2030 to include proposed transportation projects in the region as shown in the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study (HOCTS) 2010-2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).

Project Cumulative Impact(s): By definition, cumulative impact scenarios evaluate the impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments by any agency, public or private. For this project, it can be inferred that the “past” scenario is represented by the existing conditions in the project area. There are no projects already or anticipated to be approved by the City of Utica, and/or NYSDOT representing “present and foreseeable development”. As previously stated in Section 2.2.2.5, the NYSDOT Regional Planning Group has

4 – 45 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

confirmed that there are no plans to reconstruct or widen highway segments adjoining this project within the next 20 years. Therefore, this cumulative effect analysis, primarily, evaluates impacts only from past actions and the proposed project.

Land use in the study area has been substantially impacted by the cumulative effect of past residential, commercial, and industrial development and it has remained relatively unchanged since the original construction of the North South Arterial. The intent of this project is not to induce additional development, but to address a deficient bridge along with safety and operational problems identified at the Court Street intersection and at the Oriskany Boulevard (Routes 5A/5S) Interchange. Because there will continue to be limited access to the reconstructed facility, it is not likely that substantial development will be induced by the project. Also, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, there are no significant future local or private land use or economic development plans in the project area. The proposed interchange at Court Street and other proposed access improvements may encourage the improvement or redevelopment of adjacent properties. However, it is not anticipated that the future type of land use would change significantly from the existing mix of commercial, light industrial and residential use. The construction of this project alone will not contribute substantially to the cumulative effects of past and current development on notable features within the study area. From a regional standpoint, the proposed operational and mobility improvements are minor and are not significant enough to alter regional travel patterns in ways that would encourage or induce significant development outside of the project area.

As discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, the project is expected to have an overall positive socioeconomic impact in the study area. Therefore, there would be no adverse cumulative socioeconomic impacts.

As discussed in Section 4.4, this project will not result in any impacts to notable environmental resources within the study area, except for historic and cultural resources and noise. Therefore, with the exception of historic and cultural resources and noise, there is no potential for cumulative impacts to any other notable environmental resources within the study area.

Historic and Cultural Resources As discussed in Section 4.4.11, this project will have an adverse effect on historic and cultural resources in the study area and mitigation measures are proposed.

Regarding past impacts, following the initial settlement of the study area, the primary past actions that may have impacted historic and archaeological resources include: past residential, commercial, and industrial development, construction and eventual abandonment of the Chenango Canal, construction of railroad facilities and, the original construction of the North South Arterial. Since these actions have taken place over a period of time extending back through the 1800’s, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the cumulative impacts that have occurred on historic and cultural resources.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions or development resulting from this project is expected to be limited. Because there will continue to be limited access to the reconstructed facility, it is not likely that substantial development will be induced by the project. The proposed interchange at Court Street and other proposed access improvements may encourage the improvement or redevelopment of adjacent properties which could result in additional impacts to historic and cultural resources. Reasonably foreseeable future impacts to these resources are not quantifiable but, could include impacts similar to those described in Section 4.4.11.

4 – 46 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

While it is reasonable to assume that there has been some incremental impact to historic and cultural resources in the study area over time, this incremental impact does not appear to have been significantly adverse based on current land uses and conditions in the study area.

Noise The noise impact analysis for this project (Section 4.4.17) is a cumulative analysis because it includes an analysis of existing noise levels in the study area which can be attributed to past actions. Noise abatement considerations including traffic management techniques, alternative highway locations, noise barriers, and acquisitions of real property to serve as buffer zones were considered to mitigate identified impacts. The results of the Noise Study indicated that none of the techniques considered were found to be reasonable and/or feasible because they would not provide the noise reduction required or would not be considered cost effective for implementation.

4 – 47 July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

CHAPTER 5 – DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

5.1 Introduction and Methodology

A Section 4(f) Evaluation is prepared when a project proposes using land from a publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site of National, State, or local significance. Under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (United States Code, Title 23, Section 138), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) cannot approve the use of any Section 4(f) resource for transportation unless it determines that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, and that the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm.

All planning to minimize harm, including development of mitigation measures, should be determined in coordination with the agency owning or administering the open space or historic resource. The cost of mitigation should be a reasonable public expenditure, considering the severity of the impact. Although Section 4(f) regulations do not specifically require replacement of land used for transportation projects, mitigation measures involving parks and other spaces usually include replacement of land and facilities of comparable value and function, or monetary compensation to enhance the remaining land. Mitigation for historic sites usually consists of those measures necessary to preserve the historic integrity of the site.

This Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared pursuant to the finding that the PIN 2134.41, N-S Arterial Viaduct Replacement and Highway Reconstruction Project, Routes 5, 8 and 12, in the City of Utica, New York (the “project”) would have an adverse effect on the NRE building at 521 Columbia Street which has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The sections below discuss:

The applicability of this Section 4(f) Evaluation to the project; The project and project alternatives; Existing conditions of the resources; The impacts and feasibility of the N-S Viaduct Replacement Alternative; and Planning efforts to minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources.

In accordance with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulation and guidelines, the discussion of alternatives includes “avoidance alternatives” that would avoid Section 4(f) resources and would therefore have no effect on those resources (FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8A).

This Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared and circulated as a separate chapter (Chapter 5) of the Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment (DDR/EA) for this project. In accordance with FHWA guidelines, where appropriate, project information is summarized and other sections of the DDR/EA are referenced for further detail.

5.2 Applicability Of Section 4(f) to the Project

As described above a Section 4(f) Evaluation is prepared when a transportation project proposes using land from a publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site of national, state, or local significance. Since this project would not use publicly owned parkland, recreational areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges, Section 4(f) does not apply for these types of potential resources. There are archaeological resources within the project area that will be impacted, however, these resources do not warrant preservation in place. There are locations within the project area that require construction monitoring. If archeological sites are discovered during construction, the process for considering post- review of discoveries under 36 CFR 800.13 will be followed.

A Section 4(f) Evaluation is required for the proposed project for the following reason:

5-1

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

The feasible alternative under consideration would require the removal of the structure at 521 Columbia Street for construction of a replacement viaduct bridge over Oriskany Blvd. This structure has been determined eligible for NR listing.

5.3 The Route 5, 8 and 12 North-South Arterial Project

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) proposes to reconstruct the North-South arterial viaduct in the City of Utica, Oneida County. The project purpose is to eliminate structural and geometric deficiencies in the viaduct, improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety, improve access and mobility, improve neighborhood connectivity, and improve aesthetic appearances. The scope of work involves the replacement of the viaduct over Oriskany Boulevard on a shifted alignment to the west and the reconstruction of the arterial south of the viaduct on the same alignment with an interchange at the Court Street intersection. The arterial will be elevated in this area and touchdown at original ground south at Warren Street. A ten foot multi-use trail will be constructed along the west side of the arterial corridor with a pedestrian crossing at Sunset Avenue. The Oriskany Boulevard interchange will be reconfigured north of the viaduct to improve the geometry of the on and off ramps.

Traffic mitigation will be necessary throughout the construction of the project. The first mitigation site is at the intersection of NYS Route 921B (Burrstone Road) and Route 5/8/12 northbound where Lincoln Avenue will be extended to meet Burrstone Road at a new traffic signal. The second mitigation site will be at the northern terminus of NYS Route 921W (Champlin Avenue) where it will be extended across a former gas station property to intersect directly with Route 5A. See Chapter 1 for a more in depth discussion of the purpose and need for the project. The project objectives and non-standard features are fully detailed in Chapter 2.

5.4 Description of Alternatives

This section summarizes the alternatives considered for the project, including three avoidance alternatives that would not involve use of this NRE building. Five main alternatives were considered for achieving the objectives of this project. They were 1) No Build, 2) Rehabilitate the viaduct, 3) Replace the viaduct on existing alignment, 4) Replace the viaduct on new alignment with a new at-grade intersection at Court Street, and 5) Replace the viaduct on new alignment over Court Street. Of these, the only feasible alternative was determined to be #5, replace the viaduct on new alignment over Court Street.

Within this alternative, three design variations were considered for the treatment of the ramp terminals at the Court Street interchange; a modern roundabout, a single point urban interchange, and a tight diamond interchange. Multiple real estate purchases and relocations are necessary under each option.

5.5 Avoidance Alternatives

Three alternatives were analyzed to avoid the Section 4(f) resource. However, they were not carried forward in Chapter 3 – Alternatives since they were not considered viable for the reasons stated below.

Null/Maintenance Alternative In this alternative, only routine maintenance and repairs on the Routes 5/8/12 existing viaduct would be performed as needed. Also, no work would be done to improve the safety and geometric deficiencies. There would be no major construction and no effect on the Section 4(f) resource at 521 Columbia Street with this alternative. However, it would not address the safety concerns on Routes 5, 8 & 12, one of the primary objectives. Safety concerns that would not be addressed include those associated with the horizontal curve and site distance from the viaduct to the Court Street intersection, a high accident location. The need to improve access and mobility through this corridor would also not be addressed.

Rehabilitation Alternative This alternative would involve the minimum rehabilitation work along Route 5/8/12 and at the existing viaduct to correct structural deficiencies, repave Route 5, 8 & 12 within the project limits, install new signs and guide rails, and undertake safety concerns along Routes 5, 8 & 12 associated with the non-standard

5-2

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41 horizontal clearance over Oriskany Blvd. and safety concerns associated with the Court Street intersection and the rest of the corridor. The estimated cost of rehabilitating these structures is in excess of 85% of the cost to replace them in kind, making these bridges candidates for replacement according to the New York State Bridge Manual. In addition, rehabilitating the structures would not allow for any of the geometric improvements necessary to meet current AASHTO standards. For all these reasons, the rehabilitation alternative has been deemed not to be feasible and will be dropped from further consideration.

Replace on Same Alignment This alternative would replace the viaduct on the existing horizontal and vertical alignments. Some geometrical and safety improvements would be possible, however, the non-standard horizontal curve would not be improved. This curve, along with horizontal sight distance restrictions created by the close proximity of the Fay Street Warehouse, are contributing factors to the high accident occurrence at the Court Street intersection. In addition, other safety, operational and access concerns at the Court Street intersection would not be adequately addressed. This alternative fails to meet most of the stated objectives of the project and will be dropped from further consideration.

5.6 Description of Section 4(f) Resources

The Section 4(f) resource that will be directly affected by the project alternatives, 521 Columbia Street, is shown in figure 5.6.1.

Figure 5.6.1 5-3

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

521 Columbia Street (Antoine Steber House) The Antoine Steber House is located on the south corner of the intersection of Columbia and Fay Street. The two-story brick house built in the Italianate style has an ashlar foundation, stone water table, brick chimney and decorative brackets on the wide lintels, and sills. The second floor windows have wooden lintels and sills. The front (northeast side) entry is recessed and its double wooden doors with long round-arched windows and square panels sit below a slightly arched transom. Pilasters on either side of the recess support a plain band of trim and pediment similar to the first floor window crowns. Newer wooden steps lead up to the newer wooden landing and balustrades. The first floor windows are long 2/2 sash, while the three second floor 2/2 windows have smaller upper panes and larger lower panes. The front side also has three frieze-band windows covered by floral-patterned iron gates. The long northwest side along Fay Street may have been built at two different times due to the two different brick patterns. This south section also has a one-story wooden entry porch. The NRE building is eligible under Criterion C, as it is a good example of an Italianate style house in the City of Utica. The house is also eligible under Criterion A, as it reflects continued settlement and growth in the City of Utica.

5.7 Impacts of Alternatives on Section 4(f) Resources

Null/Maintenance Alternative Under this alternative, Routes 5, 8 & 12 and the viaduct would continue to receive routine maintenance, and no work would be done to improve the safety of the Court Street intersection and geometric deficiencies of the viaduct. There would be no major construction, and therefore, there would be no effect to the Section 4(f) resource. There would be no use of the Section 4(f) resource under this alternative.

Rehabilitation Alternative As discussed in Section 5.5, this alternative would involve the minimum rehabilitation work on the N-S Arterial Viaduct to correct safety and structural deficiencies, and it would undertake safety improvements at the Court Street and 5, 8 & 12 intersection. The rehabilitation alternative has been deemed not to be feasible and will be dropped from further consideration. There would be no direct or indirect permanent effects to the Section 4(f) resource under this alternative. There may be indirect temporary effects associated with construction activities such as access restrictions. There would be a use of the Section 4(f) resource under this alternative. A de minimis finding for Section 4(f) would be applicable to the property under this alternative.

N-S Arterial Viaduct Replacement on Existing Horizontal Alignment As discussed in Section 5.5, under this alternative, the viaduct would be replaced on the existing horizontal and vertical alignments. This alternative fails to meet most of the stated objectives of the project and will be dropped from further consideration. There would be no direct or indirect permanent effects to the Section 4(f) resource under this alternative. There may be indirect temporary effects associated with construction activities such as access restrictions. There would be a use of the Section 4(f) resource under this alternative. A de minimis finding for Section 4(f) would be applicable to the property under this alternative.

Replace Viaduct on New Alignment over Court Street The only feasible alternative carried forward from the project scoping phase is the Replace Viaduct on New Alignment over Court Street alternative which would include the removal of 521 Columbia Street. Under this alternative, the viaduct would be replaced on a new alignment such that Route 5/8/12 is carried over Court Street creating a grade separated intersection. In addition to eliminating the structural deficiencies of the viaduct, this alternative allows for geometric improvements such as the elimination of the non-standard horizontal curve and horizontal sight distance on mainline just north of Court Street and the creation of a southbound acceleration and auxiliary lane from Route 5A/5S. It eliminates conflicts between through traffic on Routes 5/8/12 and local traffic and pedestrians travelling along Court Street. Mobility and access will be greatly improved with the addition of a grade separated interchange at Court Street. This alternative meets all of the project objectives and is considered to be the preferred feasible alternative.

5-4

July 2011 Draft Design Report, Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation PIN 2134.41

The proposed horizontal alignment will shift the Arterial to the west of its existing location between Court Street and Routes 5A/5S. The proposed vertical alignment of the Arterial will begin to rise just north of the existing Warren Street intersection to carry the Arterial over Court Street. A new bridge will be constructed over Court Street, and replacement bridges will be constructed over Columbia Street, Lafayette Street, and Routes 5A/5S. As a result of this preferred alternative, the NRE property at 521 Columbia Street will be impacted with the shift of the viaduct to the west. The removal of this building will be considered an adverse effect under both NEPA and Section 4(f). As noted below, mitigation for the loss of this building has been stipulated in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed by FHWA, NYSDOT, and SHPO.

5.8 Measures to Minimize Harm

The measures discussed below describe the mitigative approaches that will be taken to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) resource. Coordination efforts are discussed below.

For the adverse effect, the Department has consulted with SHPO regarding mitigation that has been stipulated in the MOA signed by NYSDOT, FHWA, and SHPO. Mitigation measures have been explored by NYSDOT with SHPO and the City of Utica, and they will include documentation of this building to the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS/HAER) standards. The possible relocation of the building to a nearby site owned by the City of Utica was considered, but it has been determined not to be feasible.

5.9 Coordination

For this project there is Federal and State involvement. FHWA is the lead agency with the Department for the DR/EA process. The Department is responsible for implementation of the project. Review of the Section 4(f) Evaluation includes FHWA, NYSDOT, and SHPO. Consultation with SHPO has been ongoing since 2007 regarding potential impacts to cultural resources, and an MOA has been executed to implement mitigation. A meeting was held between FHWA, NYSDOT, and SHPO on October 5, 2010 to discuss the project impacts and mitigation to resources. The MOA has been signed by FHWA, NYSDOT, and SHPO and was submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) for filing. The MOA is included in Appendix B2. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.6, FHWA invited the ACHP to participate in consultation in the Section 106 Process. ACHP responded on April 19, 2011 and indicated that their participation was not necessary. ACHP’s letter is included in Appendix B2.

5-5