DOCSLIB.ORG

August 23, 2013 Ms. Robin Dropkin, Executive Director Parks & Trails

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
August 23, 2013 Ms. Robin Dropkin, Executive Director Parks & Trails STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION ONE ALBANY, NY 12232 www.dot.ny.gov Sam Zhou, P.E. Joan McDonald ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER August 23, 2013 Ms. Robin Dropkin, Executive Director Parks & Trails New York 29 Elk Street Albany, NY 12207 518-434-1583 [email protected] Re: PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk Bridge Project Comment letter dated August 20, 2013 Dear Ms. Dropkin: I received your comment letter in today’s mail. I’d like to thank you and your staff for the time and effort spent reviewing the proposed alternatives as outlined in the Draft Design Report and for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Your concerns are shared by the Capital District Transportation Committee and were expressed in a letter to me from their Executive Director Michael Franchini dated August 21, 2013. I’ve attached a copy of his letter for your information along with a copy of my response letter dated August 22, 2013. As I said to Mr. Franchini, different bicycling advocacy groups typically don’t agree on the best approach for accommodating bicyclists. Your letter and CDTC’s letter are a good example of this. As I explained in my response to CDTC, consistency is important, as is following current design requirements. Your proposal to establish dedicated and striped 5 foot wide bicycle lanes would meet current standards. It would also be ‘one step better’ than the currently proposed preferred 4.2 meter (14 foot) wide shared use travel lanes (as compared to the minimum required width for such lanes of 12 feet). However, your proposal to provide 10 foot wide travel lanes does not meet the applicable design requirements, which call for 3.3 meter (11 feet) lanes minimum. Therefore, in order to provide dedicated bicycle lanes a total width of 5 feet plus 11 feet, or 16 feet in all would be required. This would add 2 feet of bridge deck in each direction, for a total of 4 feet. Over the proposed 850 foot long bridge (under Alternative #6) this would require an additional 3,400 square feet of bridge deck area. Using a rough estimate of $500/SF, this would increase the cost of the bridge by $1.7 Million and so is economically not feasible. Economics aside, from a practical standpoint providing dedicated bicycle lanes over very short distance doesn’t seem to provide a great deal of benefit, especially in locations where there is no hope of ever extending those lanes. In the Town of Waterford the area immediately north of the bridge is heavily developed and is a historic district. Substantial widening there for dedicated bike lanes is highly unlikely, ever. Region One Executive Office, Suite 1s50 - 50 Wolf Road - Albany, NY 12232 The currently proposed 4.2 meter (+/- 14 foot) wide shared use travel lanes are a good compromise, in my opinion, between the minimum required 12 foot wide shared use travel lanes and the 16 foot width that would be required to provide dedicated bike lanes. The current proposal is also an improvement over existing conditions as well as more compatible with the existing and future width available in the Town of Waterford. Sincerely, Geoffrey W. Wood, P.E. Project Manager Attachments: 1) Your 08/20/2013 comment letter 2) 08/21/2013 comment letter from CDTC 3) 08/22/2013 response letter to CDTC cc: Project File Mr. Michael Franchini, Executive Director, Capital District Transportation Committee Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway Coalition, Inc. P O Box 90 Clifton Park, N Y 12065-0090 518-406-8610 http://www.MohawkTowpath.org/ August 23, 2013 Geoffrey Wood Region 1 Design 50 N Y S Department of Transportation 50 Wolf Road - Pod 2-32 Albany, New York 12232 Re: Project 1460.42 Route 32 Mohawk River Cohoes-Waterford Bridge The Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway, a state and federal recognized scenic byway, passes along and connects the communities of Cohoes and Waterford as part of the designated route for visitors to the Mohawk Towpath Byway. The reconstruction of the Route 32 bridge is of major interest to the MTSB as we continue to promote the many historical, cultural, natural and recreational aspects to visitors both near and far. It appears that design alternative 6 is the preferred choice because it causes the least disruption to the communities. However, we would like to be assured that the design will safely accommodate not only the driving public, but also pedestrians and bicyclists who might choose to stop along the way. Also note that this area of the Mohawk River between the falls and the downstream dam appears to be a good fishing location. Perhaps as the construction wraps up leaving fishing access (even without dedicated parking) would be a community asset. The Byway encourages the public to take notice of the many historical and recreational opportunities that exist along this byway that follows the route of the Erie Canal and parts of the Champlain Canal in our local communities. The reconstruction of the Route 32 bridge, also known as the Roosevelt Bridge, is of major benefit to our municipal partners along the Mohawk Towpath Byway. We look forward to its construction and completion. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact me at 518-371-7548. Thank you for allowing commentary on this important project. Sincerely, Eric J. Hamilton Executive Director STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION ONE ALBANY, NY 12232 www.dot.ny.gov Sam Zhou, P.E. Joan McDonald ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER August 22, 2013 Mr. Michael Franchini, Executive Director Capital District Transportation Committee One Park Place, Main Floor Albany, NY 12205-2676 518-458-2161 [email protected] Re: PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk Bridge Project Comment letter dated August 21, 2013 Dear Mr. Franchini: I received your comment letter in today’s mail. I’d like to thank you and your staff for the time and effort spent reviewing the proposed alternatives as outlined in the Draft Design Report and for your thoughtful and constructive comments. We’re aware of the importance of the route as a regional bicycle and pedestrian connection, but the background information you provided to support this fact is helpful in documenting that fact. Your letter will be included in the Final Design Report. In recognition of the importance of this route for bicycling we’ve selected the recommended 4.2 meter (14 feet) shared use travel lane width for this project rather than the minimum 3.6 meter (12 feet) width. I understand from your comments, and from my prior interaction with Ed Tremblay, Director of Community & Economic Development for the City of Cohoes, that the difference between the current proposal and your suggestion is simply the addition of a white pavement edge line 3 feet from the face of curb. You are not suggesting more pavement width, or a wider bridge. As I said during the Q&A portion of last Thursday night’s meeting, this is a final design detail that could be discussed further, after design approval, and this is what I recommend. For now I’d like to point out that striping a 3 foot wide shoulder, with the intended purpose of that shoulder to serve as a bicycle accommodation, does not meet the guidance/requirements contained in the current version of Chapter 17, Bicycle Facility Design, of NYSDOT’s Highway Design Manual. This chapter can be found on-line here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/chapt_17.pdf . See Section 17.4.5, ‘Shoulders’, on page 17-6 for this statement: “When the scoping or Design Approval Documents indicate a need to design shoulders on a project to specifically accommodate bicycling, the shoulder width should be a minimum of 1.2 m.” This is equivalent to 4 feet, not 3. Also see Section 17.4.6, ‘Wide Curb Lanes’, on page 17-7 for this statement: “Where an edge stripe is used on a wide curb lane, the stripe should be Region One Executive Office, Suite 1s50 - 50 Wolf Road - Albany, NY 12232 Wood to Franchini, 08/22/2103, page 2 placed as close as practicable to the curb face. However, where this has the potential for encouraging the undesirable operation of two motor vehicles in one lane, it may be preferable to place the edge stripe at the edge of the travel lane, provided that a 1.2-m wide "shoulder" space (approximate) would remain between the curb face and lane stripe.” When it comes to pavement markings, consistency is considered to be very important so that drivers and bicyclists both know what to expect and what is required (of them and of the other). It would be problematic for me to propose a typical section in the Final Design Report which deviates from the project design criteria, our Highway Design Manual, and perhaps more importantly from our current practices for striping our State Highways to ensure consistency. Whereas the CDTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force is a local group, the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual provides guidance and requirements for transportation projects state wide. Rather than advocating for specific changes to this individual project it would be more appropriate, I think, for CDTC to advocate for changes to the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual. Regarding your comments about what the Draft Design Report has to say about proposed pedestrian facilities, thank you very much for pointing this out to me. While I’ve been directly involved with the project for many years, it’s difficult to be on top of every detail.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 9.29: Town of Waterford
    SECTION 9.29: TOWN OF WATERFORD 9.29 TOWN OF WATERFORD This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Waterford. A.) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Paul McInerney/Dispatcher Supervisor Harry Martel/Highway Superintendent 65 Broad St., Waterford NY 12188 35 South St., Waterford NY 12188 (518) 237-3341 (518) 376-1678 [email protected] [email protected] B.) TOWN PROFILE Population 8,573 (estimated 2007 U.S. Census) Location The Town of Waterford, formed on April 17, 1816, is located in the southeastern corner of Saratoga County, north of the City of Troy. Its area is the smallest of any of the twenty towns in the county, being but seven square miles. It is bounded on the north by Halfmoon, on the east by the Hudson River and on the south and west by the Mohawk River. The Town of Waterford contains a village, also called Waterford. The east town line, defined by the Hudson River, is the border of Rensselaer County, and the south town line, defined by the Mohawk River, is the border of Albany County. The easternmost section and locks of the Erie Canal, which connects with the Hudson River pass through the town. The "Waterford flight" of locks is one of the highest in the world. The Erie Canal is linked to the Champlain Canal at Waterford. US Route 4, partly conjoined with New York State Route 32, is a north-south highway through eastern Waterford. According to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pavement Preservation Program 2015-2016 Project Solicitation
    Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council Pavement Preservation Program 2015‐2016 Project Solicitation Introduction The Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Planning and Programming Area that includes Warren County, Washington County, and the Town of Moreau and Village of South Glens Falls In Saratoga County. MPOs are responsible for administering a cooperative and continuing regional transportation planning process. A principal component of that process is capital programming for federally‐ funded transportation improvement projects. A/GFTC is seeking project candidates for its Pavement Preservation Program. This program consists of annual funding setasides dedicated for maintenance and preservation projects intended to prevent the deterioration of roadways that are presently in good to fair condition. The intent of the program is to encourage municipalities to actively engage in preventative maintenance strategies that reduce the need for more costly infrastructure replacement and major rehabilitation projects. Programming Levels A/GFTC has programmed $1,591,000 in matched federal Surface Transportation Program funds for pavement preservation projects that are to be obligated during Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2015‐2016. Additionally, $164,000 in matched funds has been programmed for FFY 2014‐2015 for any required design associated with the selected projects. A local match of 20% is required in order to access design and construction funds. The potential availability of Marchiselli funding, a State program that covers 75% of the required local match for federal aid transportation projects, could reduce the required local match to 5% of the overall project cost. Eligible Roadways All projects must be sponsored by a local municipality (Village, City, Town or County).
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Northumberland This Section Presents the Jurisdictional Annex for the Town of Northumberland
    9.19 Town of Northumberland This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Northumberland. The town provided the following updates that were incorporated into this annex: . Jurisdictional Annex Update Form (Contact Information, Profile, and Capability Assessment) . Hazard Ranking . NYS Mitigation Action Worksheets 9.19.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Richard E. Colozza Highway Super. 17 Catherine St.; Gansevoort, NY 12831 42 Leonard St.; Gansevoort, NY 12831 (518) 792 – 9179, ext. 112 (518) 793 – 6901 [email protected] [email protected] 9.19.2 Town Profile Population 5,151 (American Community Survey 5-Year 2016 Estimates) Location The Town of Northumberland is the 4th oldest town in Saratoga County, located along the eastern border of the County. It is bounded on the north by Moreau, on the east by the county line, on the south by Saratoga, and on the west by Wilton. There are three small hamlets in Northumberland: Gansevoort, Bacon Hill and Northumberland. The east town line is the border of Washington County and is marked by the Hudson River. The principal streams are Beaver Dam Creek and Snook kill. The Champlain Canal crosses the extreme southeastern corner, and the Delaware & Hudson railroad crosses the northwestern corner. US Route 4 is a north-south highway by the Hudson River at the southeast corner of Northumberland. New York State Route 32 is a north- south highway that intersects New York State Route 50 at Gansevoort. US-4 and NY-32 are conjoined in Northumberland. According to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Newburgh Area Transportation & Land Use Study
    Newburgh Area Transportation & Land Use Study Short Term Transit Improvement Program Draft Service Alternatives Submitted to: Orange County Department of Planning Submitted by: Abrams-Cherwony Group October 2010 Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Study Short Term Transit Improvement Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Service Alternatives 3 Service Development Process 3 Service Planning Inputs 3 Planning Precepts 5 Service Alternatives 8 Local Service 8 Alternative 1A: Existing Local Routes 9 Alternative 1B: Operator Proposal 10 Alternative 2: Two Bus System 11 Alternative 3A: Three Bus System 13 Alternative 3B: Three Bus System 16 Alternative 4A: Four Bus System 18 Alternative 4B: Four Bus System 21 Newburgh-Beacon Shuttle 23 Alternative 5A: Existing Newburgh-Beacon Shuttle 24 Alternative 5B: Newburgh-Beacon Shuttle 25 Alternative 5C: Newburgh-Beacon Shuttle 26 Other Proposals 27 Summary 29 Draft Interim Report: Service Alternatives Page 1 Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Study Short Term Transit Improvement Program LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 Alternative 1A: Existing Local Routes 10 2 Alternative 1B: Operator Proposal 11 3 Alternative 2: Two Bus System 12 4 Alternative 3A: Three Bus System 14 5 Alternative 3A: Broadway Route 15 6 Alternative 3A: North-South Route 16 7 Alternative 3B: Three Bus System 17 8 Alternative 4A: Four Bus System 18 9 Alternative 4A: Broadway Route 19 10 Alternative 4A: St. Luke’s Cornwell Hospital to Mid-Valley Mall 20 11 Alternative 4A: Newburgh Community Route 21 12 Alternative 4B: Four
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware Ave Back to Square One Page 12
    , e ht July 2, 1981 @25c ..Th e 5po ti19 v., xxv",. No" Graphic newsweekly serving the towns of Bethlehem, New Scotland, and nearby communities BETHLEHEM Delaware Ave back to square onePage 12 t- Summer at Elm St. Park VOORHEESVILLE , . Who owns . the sidewalks? Page 22 ____*,t . ___"-:'~-..=J RUSTPROOF SUMMER HOURS YfJ/J/! ~Il TfJ/JAY July 6th thru Labor Day I r :r~tli9ht ~NDAR ~fft KelAl Mon. - Fri. 8:30 A.M. - 6 P.M. ''sed Sat. 8:30 A.M. - 1 P.M. 11- CLOSED SUNDAYS Tn-Village FISH, 24-hour-a-day yoluntary service year 'round, ..,._ a. (CI d All D J I 4 h) offered by res;dents of Delmar. .Uc..-...... ose ay u y t Elsmere and SUngerlands to help ~8~EIN~~IC~[~S~TA~r~I~O~N~M=~~;I!~~;;;;~23~9=De51a~wa~re:A~ve:nu~e~,JGLENMONT 463-7712 Delmar. 439-8166 ~~~~3~~ghbors;nanyemergency. League of Women Volers meels ~ monthly at Bethlehem Library. SI>tn.oI MlSolhgnnwnls lhotl CAUSE NeJw PrpssurE' 9:15 a.m. Babysitting available. STOP SUFFERING!!! .In' dt'wrmirwd hy X ftlying IhE' Spirwo Information. 439-5786. with r\lt ,"I. ( I '-t,"",\H' '·HA'''' \\ III HI • ·\hl :"I Assemblyman Larry Lane'. (),~ lin 1:"Ii Ilr\! \ I~II I H.I I Of ( If·\ H( a ALLERGIES district office. 1 Becker Terr., Chiropractic has shown that many of Delmar. open Mondays 10-3. today's ailments are caused by "NERVE PRESSURE" • FULL. SPINAL EXAMINA nONS' • SPINAL BAUNCE TESTS 39 • SPINE GRAPHS • CHIROPRACnC SPINAL ADJ.
    [Show full text]
  • Ulster County Fixed Route Public Transportation Coordination and Intermodal Opportunities Analysis
    DRAFT FINAL REPORT Ulster County Fixed Route Public Transportation Coordination and Intermodal Opportunities Analysis Prepared for Ulster County Transportation Council Prepared by Abrams-Cherwony & Associates Eng-Wong, Taub & Associates August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE Introduction 1 Existing Services 3 Overview of Carriers 3 Public Transportation Services in Ulster County 4 Coordination Between Services 9 Transportation Facilities 9 Ridership Information 11 Operating and Financial Trends 12 Service Area 14 Socioeconomic Characteristics 14 Transit Needs Score 16 Journey To Work Information 16 Stakeholder Interviews 21 Methodology 21 Findings and Results 22 Findings and Recommendations 30 Service 30 Kingston CitiBus 30 Ulster County Area Transit 31 Transportation Demand Management 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER PAGE Land Use and Design 35 Facilities 37 Terminals 37 Commuter Parking Lots 43 Costs 49 Fares 50 Prepayment Media 50 Fare Coordination 51 U-PASS 51 UniTicket 52 Promotional Fares 52 Marketing 52 Marketing Plan 52 Specific Elements 53 Priorities 54 LIST OF TABLES FOLLOWING TABLE PAGE (For the electronic version, all tables follow the text of the report.) 1 Description of Service - Transit Services 3 2 Description of Service - Commuter/Intercity Service 3 3 Frequency of Service - Transit Services 7 4 Frequency of Service - Commuter/Intercity Service 7 5 Frequency of Service - Transit Services 7 6 Frequency of Service - Commuter/Intercity Service 7 7 Daily Ridership By Route 11 8 Five Year Operating and Financial
    [Show full text]
  • Newburgh Area Transportation & Land Use Study
    Newburgh Area Transportation & Land Use Study May 2012 Newburgh Area Transportation & Land Use Study Prepared for the Orange County Transportation Council • Edward A. Diana, OCTC Chairman & County Executive • David Church, AICP, Commissioner of Planning • John Czamanske, AICP, Deputy Commissioner of Plan- ning, OCTC Staff Director, Study Project Manager OCTC Study Advisory Group Consultant Team • Town of Cornwall AKRF, Inc. • Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson • Village of Maybrook • Graham L. Trelstad, AICP, Project Manager • Richard Klusek, AICP, Deputy Project Manager • Town of Montgomery Abrams-Cherwony Group of Gannett Fleming • Village of Montgomery • Walter Cherwony • City of Newburgh • Joshua B. Diamond • Town of Newburgh Arch Street Communications, Inc. • Town of New Windsor • Cyd Averill, Public Outreach Lead • Village of Walden • Virginia Mold, Public Outreach Liaison • Metropolitan Transportation Authority Cambridge Systematics, Inc. • New York State Department of Transportation • Brian ten Siethoff, AICP, Transportation Planning • New York State Thruway Authority • Shawn Pope, Transportation Simulation • Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Eng-Wong, Taub & Associates/VHB • Martin Taub, PE, Transportation Studies Director • Janet Jenkins, AICP, Transportation Planning Studies This report was prepared with funding provided through the Manager County of Orange, NY, as host agency of the Orange County • Amir Rizavi, PE, Senior Traffic Analyst Transportation Council using, in whole or in part, local and • Noah Bernstein, AICP, Senior Transportation Planning State matched Federal transportation planning funds. These Analyst funds are provided through grants to the State of New York from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Lochner Engineering, P.C. Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the • Mark Pawlick, PE, Vice President State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metro- • Kyle Snyder, EIT, Project Engineer politan Planning Program, Section 104(f )] of Title 23, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Stillwater This Section Presents the Jurisdictional Annex for the Town of Stillwater
    9.26 Town of Stillwater This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Stillwater. The town provided the following updates that were incorporated into this annex: . Hazard Ranking 9.26.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Sue Cunningham, Town Clerk Edward Kinowski, Supervisor 881 Hudson Ave.; Stillwater, NY 12170 881 Hudson Ave.; Stillwater, NY 12170 [email protected] [email protected] (518) 664-6148 (518) 664-6148 9.26.2 Town Profile Population 8,436 (American Community Survey 5-Year 2016 Estimates) Location The Town of Stillwater is located in the eastern section of Saratoga County. It is bounded on the north by Saratoga, on the east by the county line, on the south by Halfmoon and on the west by Malta. Stillwater is the principal village. It is located near the center of the eastern border of the town on the bank of the Hudson River. Mechanicville is also partially located within the town. The east town line is the border of Rensselaer County and Washington County, marked by the Hudson River. US Route 4, partly conjoined with New York State Route 32, follows the Hudson River through the town. New York State Route 423 is an east-west highway in the northern part of Stillwater. New York State Route 9P is a north- south highway in the northwestern part of the town by Saratoga Lake. New York State Route 67 runs along the south town line. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 43.6 square miles, with 41.4 square miles of it land and 2.2 square miles (5.07-percent) of its water.
    [Show full text]
  • Cornwall Comprehensive Plan Update Adopted March 13, 2012
    Town of Cornwall Comprehensive Development Plan Update 2011 With the Assistance of Garling Associates Community Planners 301 Main Street Goshen, New York (845) 294‐5835 Adopted by the Town of Cornwall Town Board March 13, 2012 Town of Cornwall Comprehensive Plan Update Adopted March 13, 2012 Town Board Kevin Quigley, Supervisor Mary Beth Greene Krafft, Deputy Supervisor Randy Clark Alexander Mazzocca Elizabeth J. Longinott Comprehensive Plan Committee J. Kerry McGuinness, Chairman Lorraine Bennett Mark Cote Doug Land James McGee Counsel: Stephen J. Gaba, Esq. Town Attorney 2 Town of Cornwall Comprehensive Plan Update Adopted March 13, 2012 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY ................................ 7 WHY UPDATE NOW? ........................................................................................ 7 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN ....................................................................... 8 2.0 CORNWALL TODAY: SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................... 8 2.1 Population ......................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Housing/Household Characteristics ................................................................... 16 2.3 Affordable Housing ............................................................................................. 21 3.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Farmland/Open Space Preservation Program Awards More Points to Grant Applications That Have “Intermunicipal Benefits.”
    Town of Stillwater, New York SSttiillllwwaatteerr FFaarrmmllaanndd PPrrootteeccttiioonn && GGrreeeenn IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree PPllaann December 2007 DRAFT Prepared by: Chazen Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architects CO., P.C. Stillwater Farmland Protection and Green Infrastructure Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................i INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 Rethinking Agricultural Protection................................................................ 1 What is Green Infrastructure Planning ......................................................... 3 Why Plan for Agricultural Protection & Green Infrastructure................ 4 THE PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................................... 12 The Advisory Committee ................................................................................. 12 Public Participation ......................................................................................... 13 RESOURCE INVENTORY....................................................................................... 16 Existing Land Use.............................................................................................. 16 Agricultural Resources .................................................................................... 17 Natural Resources............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sword Surrender Site
    /Surrender of General Burgoyne/,by John Trumball, 1821 Source: Architect of the Capital Site Development and Cultural Landscape Treatment Plan Planning for Battles of Saratoga: Sword Surrender Site Town of Saratoga, Saratoga County, New York Grant # GA-2255-10-013 American Battlefield Protection Program National Park Service 1201 Eye Street NW (2255) Washington, DC 20005 FINAL – June 27, 2012 This material is based upon work assisted by a grant from the Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Interior. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................................. iii INTRODUCTION Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Historical Significance .................................................................................................................................... 1 Description of the Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology and Scope of Work ................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1: LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION GOALS AND
    [Show full text]
  • New York State Route 17 - Exit 131 Overview
    New York State Route 17 - Exit 131 Overview Exit 131 is located in the Town of Woodbury, Orange County. Exit 131 is located at the intersection of New York State Route 17 and New York State Route 32. Exit 131 is adjacent to the Harriman Toll Barrier to the New York State Thruway System. The purpose of the Exit 131 reconstruction project is to improve traffic conditions at the interchange and along NYS Route 32, while bringing Route 17 up to interstate standards. The New York State Department of Transportation, Region 8, has completed the design process for the project and is continuing with acquiring right of way. It was during the design process around 2009 that funding constraints became more severe and the project design was divided in two stages such that some improvements could be undertaken with somewhat less funding. The cost of the entire project at the time (both stages) was estimated at approximately $79 Million. The funding estimate for Stage 1 was approximately $38 Million. Federal and State funding for construction for the first stage, which was at one time scheduled for 2015 and then 2017, is currently unavailable. The Project Identification Number (PIN) for Stage 1 is 800684; the PIN for Stage 2 is 800696. NYSDOT submitted an application to the Federal “Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery” (TIGER) program in 2009. The TIGER program is extremely competitive; no funding was awarded. The TIGER application provides a very detailed description of the project and its benefits. Stage 1 of the project includes reconstruction of the Route 32 bridge over Route 17 and a new loop ramp for southbound Route 32 traffic to eastbound Route 17.
    [Show full text]